Maybe they should just stop making things hard and/or expensive for them.
E.g., charging a more reasonable rate than 27% on such outside purchases.
27% is making it basically pointless to use third-party payment providers
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
E.g., charging a more reasonable rate than 27% on such outside purchases.
27% is making it basically pointless to use third-party payment providers
But the ACM ruling doesn’t say Apple can’t charge a commission so I don’t see how having a 27% commission can be reason for saying Apple aren’t in compliance.
All the ruling says is that Apple needs to allow app developers to chose either Apple IAP or 3rd party IAP. Unless I am missing some crucial detail the ACM has not mentioned Apple’s commission at all. They can’t find Apple in non-compliance for not doing something they haven’t asked Apple to do.
If the regulator wants Apple to lower the commission on 3rd party IAP they need to specify what that commission should be after considering Apple’s costs and profits.
Last edited:
Then the regulators need to come out and admit that the entire lawsuit was never about offering consumer choice, but about letting businesses circumvent Apple's App Store cut in its entirety, and that they feel developers should be allowed to piggy-back on Apple's technology and infrastructure without giving anything back. And that they are doing so in a blatant show of protectionism to favour their own local companies and prop them up vis-a-vis the competition.
Wrong on both counts, I am an engineer with several certifications and 20+ years of career as technical manager. But that aside, the ACM ruling clearly states that the App developer should be allowed alternate payment option in the same app. Apple first demands a different binary for that, which even a blind fellow could tell was not what ACM wanted. After 10 to 15 million fine, it starts offering the alternate payment option, but each time the title has some text that discourages the user. For example, it said unnecessarily.
Title: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system
After another 10 million fine, it changed the title to
Title: This app doesn’t support the App Store’s payment system.
Apple is the kind of company that needs to be fined to make it understand even simple concepts that a 4-year-old can get easily. It is getting what it deserves.
Wrong on both counts, I am an engineer with several certifications and 20+ years of career as technical manager. But that aside, the ACM ruling clearly states that the App developer should be allowed alternate payment option in the same app. Apple first demands a different binary for that, which even a blind fellow could tell was not what ACM wanted. After 10 to 15 million fine, it starts offering the alternate payment option, but each time the title has some text that discourages the user. For example, it said unnecessarily.
Title: This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system
After another 10 million fine, it changed the title to
Title: This app doesn’t support the App Store’s payment system.
Apple is the kind of company that needs to be fined to make it understand even simple concepts that a 4-year-old can get easily. It is getting what it deserves.
The order subject to periodic penalty payments
20. ACM 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.
21. Apple must execute this order, no later than two months after the date of this decision. If it fails to do so, it must pay a periodic penalty of 5,000,000 euros per week, up to a maximum of 50,000,000 euros.
This is an excerpt from the summary of the decision
Because that's what the EU does. Can't compete? Use government power.Not the dutch, the EU, under the DMA.
The remedies could ultimately include forcing companies to divest if they breach the rules systematically. The same official said that selling parts of the business would only happen “if no other remedy is available.”
EU announces sweeping new rules that could force breakups and hefty fines for Big Tech
Tech giants could soon face hefty fines and stricter controls over their behavior as part of sweeping new rules in the European Union.www.cnbc.com
We think you're ant-competitive! You did what we asked but we didnt like how!!! Puhlese.
As for 'dominating position' what's Apple's share of the Dutch market? And is Android not available there?
I think the fees topped out at 50 million. Or, did they create a new tier of charges? I wouldn’t be surprised, they’re quite mercurial.
Right, that’s what I thought.
Contracts have to be found to be non-binding. Once the ink’s dry, if it was not specifically a non-binding agreement, then all parties are bound until one party goes through the long process to have it ruled non-binding. There’s nothing in an agreement for me to pay Ford a percentage of every tank of gas I buy that’s non-binding. So, if I sign it, then that’s the agreement I have with Ford that I have to abide by. If I don’t like that deal, I don’t sign it then try to get it ruled non-binding I just don’t enter into that agreement.
Roughly 20% at best. LOT of noise being made when most users who desire the flexibility of Android are buying Androids.
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.
It does not say it can be in a different binary. I am ending this discussion here.
Again, you're quoting the same thing that I did. The order does not say it could or could NOT be in a different binary. You said the order clearly state it had to be in the same app. You were wrong.
Apple pointed out that the Match Group already submits different binaries in other countries to comply with local laws, so it's completely reasonable to propose to do the same thing here.
Apple must be find having a dominating position before it can be found to be anti competitive. It’s in the ruling by both the court and the ACM.
A Monopoly isn’t illegal. Apple explicitly didn’t fulfill the objective
Completely irrelevant as market share and market dominance isn’t illegal. Just abusing your positioning is illegal.
ACM is essentially telling apple they must write an essay of 10 pages about the Steve Jobs.
Apple is explicitly writing a few paragraphs and filling the rest with random gibberish and complaining why their essay wasn’t accepted
Court is obviously the next step. Apple has already appealed the ACM's decision back in December. The Netherlands is one of the few places an appeal does not suspend or stay a decision. That just means Apple has to go though this performative song and dance until the ACM's enforcement clock runs out. Then the ACM will have to refer the matter to court becuse they don't have the atuhotirty to further enforce it. Apple is fully working within the letter of the law here despite what the press on the matter leads you to believe. The ACM is trying to frame this as a "strategy of constructive refusal to comply" but the reality is they are miffed because their fines were designed to enforce absolute compliance before a company could ever appeal the matter before a court and they never imagined a company would just pay them and drag out the process until they could take it before a judge. The law is pretty clear. Address the issue OR pay a fine and the maximum fine is 50M Eur.
Apple is ethically in the right here despite what one feels about the AppStore or third party payment systems. Having a regulatory compliance enforcement system that constructively ( though the application of onerous fines ) does not allow for appeals to be heard before a decision comes into effect is an abuse of the concept of due process. Forcing companies (or even individuals) to make costly changes to their services or business models that could later be reversed on appeal on short notice is something even the EC has been very critical of recently.
Side note: The ACM wanted to fine Netflix 15K EUR a day (300K max) for not having email contact information on their site. Netflix insisted live chat was adequate. The ACM disagreed and continued to insist Netflix was not complying. A court later ruled in Netflix's favor.
You should read the ruling (Use google translator) because it gives an insight in how the ACM ignored the letter of the law and constructed their own abstract opinion of it they then used to accuse Netflix of not complying with. ACM never even followed up with Netflix's proposed compliance solution to see if they, in fact, were in compliance. They even ignored the scope of their authority under the EU law they were trying to enforce. Netflix's lawyers stood by the letter of the law and were vindicated.
Last edited:
Yep, I'd be pretty darn sure Apple complied with the rulings in the way they did (to the letter) to force the ACM to bring this to a court where they will have to disclose exactly what they want and their motivations behind their requests.
Whatever the decision it will set a legal precedence for future court battles with other App providers who want the same thing.
Apple know if dating apps are allowed to circumvent commissions entirely there's nothing to prevent other industries requesting the same thing, which would be the beginning of the end for App Stores (not just Apples either).
Entirely relevant. The OP asked what their marketshare in the country is. Providing that number is 100% relevant to their question.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Apple have already been in court, they have filled for appeal and had a preliminary ruling in ACMs favor, that is why ACM had to postpone the fines a few months as the ruling believe there is little chance for the ruling to be overruled. I absolutely recommend you to read what the ACM can do and why apple is still breaking the order.
Dutch Telecommunications Act.
Our powers | ACM
here you go
they had a court hearing, and lost. They have appealed and are waiting a final ruling, the preliminary ruling is that apple is in the wrong that is why the ruling isn't suspended.
Apple's ethical rightness is not relevant to competition law.
Epic showed unrefutable proof apple doesn't need to do any drastic change to allow developers to use their own payment system next to apple's IAP option
Very interesting case, but apple's case is already past the court. the ACM is cooperating with the EUC investigating apple for anticompetitive practices.
Sure, but not to the question of legality. a 100% market share or 10% market share doesn't have a legal impact,
fortunately for EU law and not so fortunate for apple, court precedence is not done by lower courts, it's case by case basis.
here i have for everyone to read all teh documents some explicitly spells out thign sapple must do
Zaaknummer: ACM/19/035630 | ACM
What should Apple change?
Apple must adjust the conditions for access to the Dutch App Store for dating app providers. Dating app providers should also be able to use other payment systems in addition to Apple's payment system in the App Store. In addition, dating app providers should be given the option to refer to payment options outside the app in their app.
Martijn Snoep, Chairman of the Board of ACM: “Some app providers depend on Apple's App Store and Apple abuses it. Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position. That is why Apple must also take the interests of app providers seriously and work with reasonable conditions. We now enforce that. Protecting people and companies from abuse of market power in the digital economy is one of our most important tasks.”
The problem is Apple's solutions aren't reasonable as according to the ruling
I mean, I wasn’t speaking to the legality. Not every post I make is controversial.
Are they inferring that Apple and the ACM could come to an agreement whereby ACM provides Apple a yearly quota under which Apple would no longer be considered “dominant” and, by limiting shipments, they’d no longer have special responsibilities because they’d no longer be dominant?
No, wait, ACM will never define what “dominant” is because that requires a specific number and they’re not going to provide that.
A dominant position is legally defined and completely separate from market share. did you even read the document?
Point 8 to 14 in their summery that BaldiMac said: posted
and the longer ruling point 2 to 17 are the argumentation the court reviewed. it's in dutch so use google translate.
I ABSOLUTELY did not read the document.
But, I’m guessing, without reading the document, that “dominant” would be “whatever ACM says it is”. Just the idea that a company is “dominant” without actually being “most important, powerful, or influential” is interesting, but the Dutch meaning is likely different from the English so a robotic translation wouldn’t help to understand that part any more.
Sure, if you want to discount everything that has happened since December. The compliance of Apple's proposed solutions have not been decided by a court. As other cases have shown, the ACM may have been given legally compliant solutions by Apple in the meantime that they then wrongly rejected. As long as Apple is paying the fines and providing what they believe are workable solutions, it's hard to say they are acting in bad faith. The only next step is the ACM will have to try to convince the court that Apple is not compliant and they will have to get court approval to continue any enforcement. The original appeal is also still pending and this will be settled in court long after the ACM has exhausted all of its enforcement leverage.
Apple's legal counsel is more than competent and I would find it hard to believe the company is just flailing about out of pure stubbornness. I know everyone wants to the see the big bad company get its comeuppance, but there are many steps ahead before this is over and regulatory bodies don't get to short-circuit that process simply because they want to. As I said in the beginning, this will be settled in court.
Last edited: