Where in the terms and conditions does it say those companies will get that much for those things?
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
Shocker, everyone wants their hands in Apple’s pockets like estranged relatives want death money when in reality, they wanted nothing to do with the deceased when they were alive. We call these people vultures.
Thesevultures developers ridicule the App Store and Apple, yet they have no problem taking the money from customers that Apple provides, kinda like the relationship between restaurants and DoorDash. Better yet, they want to cut Apple out of the equation entirely.
They might as well say “Thanks for the platform and market reach, now go away you greedy **** and let us make our money. And btw, you’re not getting a cut of it.” At least then I’d take them seriously. This disingenuous “customer choice” crap is a front. The minute tech blogs talk about how developers have become “disadvantaged” or “disenfranchised” is where the lid blows off. Having billions of potential customers at your disposal in exchange for a commission is disenfranchisement? Since when is anyone entitled to revenue for absolutely no cost? Why should Apple take the hit? It’s because Apple has money, and nothing makes money hungry vultures madder than when they have to share money. Apple knows this, that’s whey they have the App Store locked down. Again, why should Apple take the hit?
If developers aren’t happy with their costs of doing business, they need to either increase revenue or do business elsewhere. I’m not sure what else to suggest.
In the end, Apple built the App Store and is directly responsible for how this pans out. I wouldn’t want to be in their position. Regulators can get a million sheep on board with the “pro consumer” lie no matter how destructive it ends up being to Apple’s business (which includes the device you use and rely upon).
These
They might as well say “Thanks for the platform and market reach, now go away you greedy **** and let us make our money. And btw, you’re not getting a cut of it.” At least then I’d take them seriously. This disingenuous “customer choice” crap is a front. The minute tech blogs talk about how developers have become “disadvantaged” or “disenfranchised” is where the lid blows off. Having billions of potential customers at your disposal in exchange for a commission is disenfranchisement? Since when is anyone entitled to revenue for absolutely no cost? Why should Apple take the hit? It’s because Apple has money, and nothing makes money hungry vultures madder than when they have to share money. Apple knows this, that’s whey they have the App Store locked down. Again, why should Apple take the hit?
If developers aren’t happy with their costs of doing business, they need to either increase revenue or do business elsewhere. I’m not sure what else to suggest.
In the end, Apple built the App Store and is directly responsible for how this pans out. I wouldn’t want to be in their position. Regulators can get a million sheep on board with the “pro consumer” lie no matter how destructive it ends up being to Apple’s business (which includes the device you use and rely upon).
Lol where in the terms does it even say they offer a marketplace for those things?
Does Dell or Ford or Fedex or UPS have an App Store? Answer: No, so what kind of comment is that supposed to be?
Does Microsoft, Samsung, Google, Sony have an App Store? Answer: Yes. What do they charge? 30%
It doesn’t, but my point was that those payments don’t happen because they aren’t in any terms and conditions. However, those payments are in the apple developer terms and conditions, hence Apple gets a commission.
and most of them have side loading / let apps have there own in app stores.
And they don't take 30% of an dating app.
Also they don't take 30% of an uber ride or 30% of an online food order.
Some people don’t realize that certain situations are more complex than flipping a switch. Of course, that’s not their problem when they (the developers) stand to lose nothing and gain everything. I’m sure developers would love to have unaudited revenue as long as the evil corp takes the financial and operational hit and not them.
You sure love to throw in complete non-sequitors. Who compares selling a Ford to a software app in an app store. How about apples to apples? They ALL charge the same. I like pizza, too. (yes, that is from a well-known joke)
Correct. I should have said record revenues. You are correct that we do not have any expense numbers.
All bad faith arguments, but I have, at times, paid FedEx many multiples of the value of the item shipped to get it somewhere overnight.
Does Dell exclusively own the IP that allows the development of games distributed throughout Steam to run on their PCs? (Microsoft and Sony do for their consoles)
Do gas stations sell petroleum products with proprietary chemical formulas licensed exclusively from Ford that only work with Ford vehicles? (But you should see how royalties are paid to fuel brands by gas stations. I hear they are as high as 15%. Usually by the time a gas station owner pays out all the fees to everyone involved they make a tiny 1.4% profit margin on gas.)
Does Ford provide tools, plans, and knowhow for toll parking companies to build parking spaces optimized for Ford vehicles? (Municipalities and private land owners that provide land for parking companies usually get a cut of the revenue. Sometimes the inverse is true as they pay administrative fees (%) to the technology companies that provide the parking networks, meters, and apps to process payments if land owners want to do it themselves)
Are those mail order parcels reselling intellectual property devised from technology created by UPS, FedEx or the US Postal Service and are only deliverable through their networks to addresses with mailboxes bought from those respective companies that contain the IP necessary to make the IP in the parcels functional? (Most business plan advisers will recommend you anticipate shipping costs between 15 and 20% of net sales.)
Last edited:
80% of the people in the Netherlands choose non-Apple devices. The government should instead pay a subsidy to people that, having accidentally bought an iPhone, want to replace it with a non-iPhone. If this is REALLY about the consumer freedom, that is.
Looking into the details, they can’t define what they want down to the exact percentage because that would be overstepping their bounds. They don’t have that jurisdiction and they know it.
And the thing is, if I sign a contract with Ford that they get 30% of each fill up when I buy a car, then that’s what they get.
considering it's what 5 pages or so order that have both the suirized version and the "longer" version
well, you kind of forgot to include the things ACM found.Not to step on your point (which I agree with, in general), but I posted the order a few posts up. It's available in English from the ACM website.
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets
Case no. ACM/19/035630 / Document no. ACM/UIT/568584
Apple’s abuse
17. [suspended]
The key part is tho the suspended part that we don't know what it is, and the fact the ACM this time mentioned EU law AND Dutch law, making it much wider.
And in the longer text it includes they must stop their anticompetitive behavior, this means they can't just add extra hoops when they don't need to be there outside of trying to disincentivised alternative payment options
I didn't "forget" to post the findings. I specifically posted the order and linked to a summary of the findings. The findings are not the order. The order is what Apple has been ordered to do to resolve the findings.well, you kind of forgot to include the things ACM found.
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets
Case no. ACM/19/035630 / Document no. ACM/UIT/568584
Apple’s abuse
17. [suspended]
The key part is tho the suspended part that we don't know what it is, and the fact the ACM this time mentioned EU law AND Dutch law, making it much wider.
And in the longer text it includes they must stop their anticompetitive behavior, this means they can't just add extra hoops when they don't need to be there outside of trying to disincentivised alternative payment options
I'm surprised every other US and foreign company in EU manages to follow the law and court orders, but apple is incapable to? this is how the law works. They do not give a dictate of how to do everything.
see above comment. you get objectives you must fulfill, how that happens is up to you. this is how it works in EU,
it's actually because in EU we don't define the details, that's not the government's responsibility to tell you how to stop breaking the law, thats up to every company in every case to come up with their solution for their unique situations
things arent legal just because it's in a contract.And the thing is, if I sign a contract with Ford that they get 30% of each fill up when I buy a car, then that’s what they get.
Apple vs. Qualcomm trial: what’s behind the rivalry?
Five-week legal battle could have a significant impact on the smartphone world
www.theweek.co.uk
Meanwhile, Apple argues that the chipmaker charges “too much for licensing its patents” and is seeking up to $27bn (£20.63bn) in damages, the US-based broadcaster adds.
A little ironic, wouldn't you say that they complain of paying too much after signing the dotted line
Not every company does as there are enforcement actions and court rulings against different companies all the time. And not every company that resists complying with regulatory authorities is guilty as often courts side with them against the regulators on one point of law or another. The only thing unique about Apple is that they have a well-recognized name and any press about them generates a lot of discussion.
Last edited:
Old news. It was mostly decided in Qualcomm's favor. Apple is paying them which is the right thing to do. Really odd that the temperament among many here is that Apple should pay when they use IP from other companies but other companies should not have to pay Apple to use their IP.Qualcomm, which supplied “crucial” processors for iPhones, is suing Apple for $7bn (£5.35bn) in unpaid royalties, along with “other damages totalling billions of dollars”, CNN reports.Apple vs. Qualcomm trial: what’s behind the rivalry?
Five-week legal battle could have a significant impact on the smartphone world
Meanwhile, Apple argues that the chipmaker charges “too much for licensing its patents” and is seeking up to $27bn (£20.63bn) in damages, the US-based broadcaster adds.
A little ironic, wouldn't you say that they complain of paying too much after signing the dotted line
Dating/Escort/Prostitution Apps in the Netherlands could easily run on the web and avoid Apples’s iOS altogether. I’m confused why they don’t just use web based apps. I suspect this issue has a totally different motive behind it than what’s being stated.
Actually, they settled out of court. They wrote up a new contract where Apple essentially gave in to most of Qualcomm's demands because Intel failed in producing decent modem chips. Apple had no choice. It was either give in or not ship an iPhone. The conditions of the new contract were that both sides would drop all litigation and enter into a new cross-licensing agreement. I don't know who would have won in the end, but Apple did have a good case on FRAND. Qualcomm had a monopoly, which required them to charge royalties according to FRAND principles.
It's quite arguable they didn't, since they not only charged for the parts, but they charged royalty on IP, AND charged additional royalties based on the total retail price of the phone. So if Apple or anyone else decided to upgrade the screen on their phone, for instance, they would have been forced to pay higher royalties to Qualcomm, even though Qualcomm had nothing to do with the screen. Apple's argument was that they were paying Qualomm for a large part of the phone where Qualcomm owned no IP. Even though I worked for Qualcomm for over 17 years, I still thought Qualcomm was in the wrong, charging monopoly prices despite being bound to FRAND, though it did wonders for my RSU's.
A reasonable person would think that someone who bought an identical chipset from Qualcomm should pay the same royalty regardless of whether the phone cost $300 or $1200 retail since no QCOM IP was used in that $900 difference in price. Yet because Apple only made premium phones, they were hit harder than any other phone maker.
Qualcomm might have won in the end because FRAND is a subjective criteria. A judge could easily rule in either direction. But to me, personally, I think it's wrong to charge royalties for parts you didn't make and had nothing to do with, IP-wise.
There you go. I fixed that for you.
If you look across all of these posts you’re referring to (and I know you do because you’re in all of them), you will find the same tired anti Apple nonsense spouted, and any questions or points raised which don’t fit that narrative get completely ignored. For example, you always wheel out this classic: ‘lots the top rated apps on the AppStore are scams’, to which I regularly ask you to send me the links to these scam apps at the top of the store charts. Yet you never do, instead just ignoring the request. But still you say it on each thread several times. What gives here, and why should anyone listen to you or take what you say with any sort of authority?
Right, that’s what I said, they don’t have jurisdiction to define the details. Or, are you saying they DO have the jurisdiction, they just don’t do it because that’s how the EU is?
Nope, but once it’s signed, there is no “Ah, nope, it’s illegal, so I’m not following it”. One has to define what’s illegal (it may truly be illegal or it may be something one just doesn’t like) and why it’s illegal in court and hope that some judge rules in their favor. If the judge DOESN’T rule in their favor, then the contract as signed is what they have to adhere to.
Which is why it’s VERY VERY important to know what a contract says before signing it.
That isn't 'intent'. That's being specific, which was my point. If they want to play that game, fine. But then, while they can say "you didn't fulfill this objective" they can't turn around and say "we don't like HOW you fulfilled the objectives."