Dutch Regulator Still Unsatisfied With Apple's Rules Surrounding Dating Apps

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Actually the first summary is officially translated by the ACM. The second bigger document is from the Dutch court ruling. Dominat posted + anticompetitive practices = abusing dominating position.

This is based on market effects you can observe. And actually Observed in whole of EU with local interpretation and implantation, all information exist in English. But here you have the Dutch government laws information page.

Ban on abuse of a dominant position

The Dutch Competition Act (Mededingingswet) prohibits companies from abusing a dominant position. Find out when a company is deemed to hold a dominant position.

business.gov.nl

And here you have EU

Promoting fair competition – EU action | European Union

The EU’s competition rules help ensure a level-playing field for businesses across Europe. Search EU competition cases, see the latest news and events.

european-union.europa.eu

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.

It can very easily be shown apple is acting in bad faith by stalling, not providing any solution for weeks and if their proposals are shown to be anti competitive then apple will end up exactly where they are now.

And their time is running out. When DMA becomes law in 2023

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.

You would be surprised. Just look up Googles a ti competitive cases in the EUCJ they have lost. They even tried to negotiate a deal witch the EU commission ignored after they started their investigation

 

[AppliedMicro]

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.

„App providers pay 99 US dollars each year for using the App Store. Almost 85 percent of app providers pay only this fee. These are small businesses, but also major companies such as Amazon, Booking or Uber. If an app provider wishes to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app (like dating apps), Apple imposes additional conditions. [suspended]* This situation applies to slightly over 15 percent of all app providers. [suspended]*

ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service

https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/acm-obliges-apple-adjust-unreasonable-conditions-its-app-store

? Also: When the ACM made that ruling, Apple did not charge commissions on any outside payment. Not for shopping apps and not for video streaming apps that were already allowed in-app purchases through outside payment methods.

They can’t find Apple in non-compliance for not doing something they haven’t asked Apple to do.

Why should they have asked Apple for 0% commissions in the first place? Apple never did charge a commission for purchases outside of Apple’s IAP.

? Apple brazenly made up a new 27% commission in response to the ACM‘s order.

They were being found unreasonably exploiting a dominant position and obliged to give businesses a choice. It should be very slapping an entirely new fee on that choice and coming up with addition requirements that make exercising that choice financially unreasonable does not comply with the intent of the order.

The question is: are competition authorities supposed to anticipate every shenanigan companies may come up to circumvent their rulings? I suppose they don’t think so.

? Also, a commission on on-platform sales (whether Apple is involved in that sale or not) - doesn’t that highlight Apple’s abuse of a dominant position even more?

The Netherlands aren’t the northern district of California that has (preliminarily) ruled that Apple may be entitled to commissions for their IP.

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.

Last time I looked, Match Group (that seems to have brought forward this complaint, see the court order) is an American company, not a local one.

Apple know if dating apps are allowed to circumvent commissions entirely there's nothing to prevent other industries requesting the same thing,

That’s already happening - and mentioned in the preliminary court ruling: Other industries do not pay commission: Booking.com, Amazon, Expedia - they don’t pay commission for in-purchases. Even digital streaming video providers don‘t pay commission today with Apple‘s Video Partner Program.

 

[tobybrut]

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.

Fined for what? Apple did exactly what they asked for. You still can't say why it doesn't meet requirements as written. As for being an engineer, there's no way in h*ll you'd accept requirements that shoddy. You're on the wrong side if you claim to be an engineer.

If they didn't ask for it, they're not going to get it. Apple was offering 30% before and cut it to 27% to offset the lack of having to pay the payment processor, a discount of 3%, which is what it costs. But since ACM never said a thing about a commission, why would Apple give that up voluntarily without being asked?

Basically you want Apple to pay for everything and let developers get everything for free. Sorry, capitalism doesn't work that way. It is the ACM that is being anti-competitive in favor of its own businesses and trying to tilt the playing field. i understand they're politicians and the brothel industry greased some palms to hurt Apple in their favor. They have a prerogative to do that, but Apple also has a right to walk away. They should and just ban those apps.

 

[visualseed]

It can very easily be shown apple is acting in bad faith by stalling, not providing any solution for weeks and if their proposals are shown to be anti competitive then apple will end up exactly where they are now.

As of this moment no court has found Apple’s solution to be non-compliant so Apple acting in good fiath or bad faith is only a matter of opinion. I’ll check back in a few months or a year to see how our opinions on this fared. I do predict, when a court finally rules on this, Apple’s proposed solutions will be found to have been in compliance and possibly the original ACM decision will be found to be flawed. Certainly their decision to market test Apple’s proposed solutions with their petitioning competitors will be scrutinized by the court. Remember this can theoretically go all the way to the ECJ so there is plenty of time yet for fortunes to turn and interesting details to emerge.

 

[Beautyspin]

Fined for what? Apple did exactly what they asked for. You still can't say why it doesn't meet requirements as written. As for being an engineer, there's no way in h*ll you'd accept requirements that shoddy. You're on the wrong side if you claim to be an engineer.

If they didn't ask for it, they're not going to get it. Apple was offering 30% before and cut it to 27% to offset the lack of having to pay the payment processor, a discount of 3%, which is what it costs. But since ACM never said a thing about a commission, why would Apple give that up voluntarily without being asked?

Basically you want Apple to pay for everything and let developers get everything for free. Sorry, capitalism doesn't work that way. It is the ACM that is being anti-competitive in favor of its own businesses and trying to tilt the playing field. i understand they're politicians and the brothel industry greased some palms to hurt Apple in their favor. They have a prerogative to do that, but Apple also has a right to walk away. They should and just ban those apps.

1. Why do you think the issue is the 27% cut that Apple is taking? Is it because you think that is nonsense?
2. Why do you think the requirements are not clear? How is Apple making changes without requirements? If you see the title of the payment links, you will see that they have changed the wording, how did they know which wording has to be changed?
3. The fines will be there and they will be more than the weekly five million euros, every week.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple did exactly what they asked for.

Introducing a new 27% on outside purchases wasn’t what they asked for.

Apple was offering 30% before and cut it to 27%

Bit disingenuous to put it that way (though not really you, but from Apple). There was no commission on non-IAP purchases even when and where available through apps. And th

Also, it should be noted that Apple, according to their App Store terms is receiving a commission acting as agent or commissionaire - it‘s quite a stretch to call the. that when the purchase is made outside.

It is the ACM that is being anti-competitive in favor of its own businesses

Does the ACM provide „dating“ (intermediation) services themselves? Don‘t think so.
Match Group is referred to in the preliminary court ruling. How are they the ACM‘s „own business“?

Basically you want Apple to pay for everything and let developers get everything for free. Sorry, capitalism doesn't work that way

I think that‘s not the case for many - and it’s not usually true.
In any case, if you’re saying that it‘s about freeloading, that goes both ways:

- Apple provides an application download store (that also sells optional „enhancements“ or subscriptions as in-app purchases). And yes, they deserve to be compensated for that. And they are: The developer membership costs money, as do downloads - unless developers make use of Apple „giving them away“ for free.

- Match Group or other dating service providers provide a paid service that they deserve to be compensated for. Apple is freeloading on that service by charging commissions (at a commission rate of 30% that‘s way above competitive pricing). Not for provision of any dating or other service - no, just because they can.

And that freeloading should stop.

They should and just ban those apps.

As I‘ve said multiple times: yes, bring it on! Ban those apps already!
It will only act as a wake-up call and provide more ammunition to the notion that Apple is abusing their market position and bring forward swifter and more forceful regulation.

 

[BaldiMac]

- Match Group or other dating service providers provide a paid service that they deserve to be compensated for. Apple is freeloading on that service by charging commissions (at a commission rate of 30% that‘s way above competitive pricing). Not for provision of any dating or other service - no, just because they can.

Not sure why you're trying to make this about the commission, but 30% is not "way above competitive pricing". It's the same as the competition.

 

[AppliedMicro]

30% is not "way above competitive pricing". It's the same as the competition.

It‘s not, once you look beyond non-gatekeeping platforms.

If an app provider wishes to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app (like dating apps), Apple imposes additional conditions.
(…)
ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service.

The ACM order is about payment processing. Since that’s what Apple is providing.

- No, Apple aren’t providing dating services.
- No, they aren’t charging for „access to customer base“, since that’s not what they have been charging for in their own terms and conditions. And they aren’t charging it Amazon, Expedia, booking.com, Uber or my local kebab joint for their ordering app either (as the ACM and court ruling stated)
- And no, merely enabling features in-app or an online service doesn’t require Apple’s IP either.

You can do online payment processing for way less than 30%.
Even Apple themselves (correctly) claim you can, in their announcement of 27% commission rate.

? In the end, it’s very simple: how much would Match.com pay for payment processing, if they could choose their own online payment gateway/services provider, without being forced to go through Apple? Answer: nowhere near 30%. Even Sumup can do it at 3% or less for even the smallest online merchants.

? And the question remains: What are the 27% commission charged for, if the transaction doesn’t go through Apple?
Answer: For their monopoly - or at least dominant - position in the relevant market that they can technically enforce.

(And no, it‘s not me making make up that assumption regarding relevant market and Apple’s position in it. The judge said so in the preliminary ruling: „De voorzieningenrechter is van oordeel dat de ACM op goede gronden heeft aangenomen dat er sprake is van een economische machtspositie op de relevante markt voor appstorediensten op het mobiele besturingssysteem iOS“. So at least in this case and for the time being we don’t need references to Android and how Apple has only a non-dominant market share of smartphones overall. It’s only a preliminary ruling, but at least it seems plausible to me, the ACM and that judge that Apple indeed has and leverages a dominant market position).

 

[BaldiMac]

It‘s not, once you look beyond non-gatekeeping platforms.

There are no non-gatekeeping platforms that offer similar value to the App Store and Google Play.

If an app provider wishes to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app (like dating apps), Apple imposes additional conditions.
(…)
ACM is of the opinion that these conditions are not proportional to the additional payment service.

Your confusing the findings with the order.

The ACM order is about payment processing. Since that’s what Apple is providing (no, Apple aren’t providing dating services. And no, they aren’t providing „access to customer base“, since that’s not what they have bern charging for in their own terms and conditions - and they aren’t charging it Amazon, Expedia, booking.com, Uber or my local kebab joint’s app either. And no, merely enabling features in-app or an online service doesn’t require Apple’s IP either).

You can do online payment processing for way less than 30%. Even Apple themselves (correctly) claim you can, in their announcement of 27% commission rate.

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that Apple explicitly states that the 27% isn't for payment processing, so it's silly to compare it to a rate for payment processing.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There are no non-gatekeeping platforms that offer similar value to the App Store and Google Play.

That’s why their operators enjoy a dominant market position, yes.

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that Apple explicitly states that the 27% isn't for payment processing, so it's silly to compare it to a rate for payment processing.

? So for what is it then?

I already gave the answer above (which I liberally expanded after posting):
- It’s not for IP or dating services
- If it were for „access to customer base“, they are unreasonably discriminating against dating app providers, since they aren’t charging other apps/developers for that (a point the ACM has made and which is explicitly mentioned in the judge‘s order)
- It’s not for app review and provision of download services either, for the very same reasons (review and admission to the App Store is free for most apps, and again, the point was raised in the order)

? Apple are just freeloading - because and where they can enforce these commissions technically (app signing) and from their dominant market position.

 

[BaldiMac]

That’s why their operators enjoy a dominant market position, yes.

And now you've changed the topic.

? So for what is it then?

I already gave the answer above (which I liberally expanded after posting):
- It’s not for IP or dating services
- If it were for „access to customer base“, they are unreasonably discriminating against dating app providers, since they aren’t charging other apps/developers for that (a point the ACM has made and which is explicitly mentioned in the judge‘s order)
- It’s not for app review and provision of download services either, for the very same reasons (review and admission to the App Store is free for most apps, and again, the point was raised in the order)

? Apple are just freeloading - because and where they can enforce these commissions technically (app signing) and from their dominant market position.

The idea that charging for certain things and not others is "unreasonably discriminating" is the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is based on market effects you can observe. And actually Observed in whole of EU with local interpretation and implantation, all information exist in English. But here you have the Dutch government laws information page.

Market effects that can be observed BUT, quite interestingly, not defined by any numeric value. It becomes clearer why EU companies are small compared to others. Trying not to run afoul of 27 sets of non-enumerated but locally interpreted rules must be challenging.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And now you've changed the topic.

How so?
The ACM order was made based on exactly that: the dominant market position:
„Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position.“

The idea that charging for certain things and not others is "unreasonably discriminating" is the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread

Maybe you feel that.
That said, the ACM clearly pointed out how a minority of apps is being paying these commissions - compared to most others that don’t (yet still allow in-app purchases).

e. It becomes clearer why EU companies are small compared to others. Trying not to run afoul of 27 sets of non-enumerated but locally interpreted rules must be challenging.

I don‘t think it’s that. The U.S. has 50 states whose laws on trading practices, taxes, consumer protection etc. can vary considerably. I think it’s more to down to less proactive regulation of companies.

 

[I7guy]

Well, I guess Apple is learning what is wrong with the statements, each week costing five million. From next week, the lessons are going to become costlier, it seems. The more stubborn Apple is, the more costly the lessons become.

Don’t think the care about the money. They’ll make it back in another record breaking quarter.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I don‘t think it’s that. The U.S. has 50 states whose laws on trading practices, taxes, consumer protection etc. can vary considerably. I think it’s more to down to less proactive regulation of companies.

US States are far more similar than EU countries because there’s still one government dealing with interstate commerce instead of 27 smaller ones.

 

[Beautyspin]

Don’t think the care about the money. They’ll make it back in another record breaking quarter.

I guess that is the reason the EU is coming up with the DMA, so that even Apple will feel the pinch when they do not follow regulations. For instance, if they don't open up NFC to 3rd parties, they could be fined 3.6 billion euros for the first offence. The fine doubles if they continue to do the same mistake and so on. Oh! Apple will start caring. That is a given.

 

[tobybrut]

1. Why do you think the issue is the 27% cut that Apple is taking? Is it because you think that is nonsense?
2. Why do you think the requirements are not clear? How is Apple making changes without requirements? If you see the title of the payment links, you will see that they have changed the wording, how did they know which wording has to be changed?
3. The fines will be there and they will be more than the weekly five million euros, every week.

1. It was brought up by someone else in this thread, not me. Many people in this thread are assuming this was part of the problem. I don't know if it's a secret requirement or not, though it's not a documented requirement.

2. The requirements aren't clear because the proposals were rejected. By the very wording of the requirements, Apple met them. I've said this over and over again, the dual binary issue was NOT in the requirement, so there was no obligation on the first proposal for Apple to allow only a single binary. That is the very definition of a bad requirement because it wasn't listed. When Apple proposed it, it was rejected. Why? There was nothing in the docs that said it had to be a single binary. Rejecting both proposals were basically the ACM moving the goal posts. There is no changing anyone's minds on this one unless someone can show an actual document produced before Apple made that change to show they weren't in compliance. ACM clearly didn't mention it ahead of time and changed the rules in the middle of the game. How would that be Apple's fault?

3. I really don't give a crap about fines. Apple's got more money than ACM does and they can afford to fight in court however much they want to. Heck, Apple has more cash and convertible securities lying around than the entire Dutch annual budget. I looked it up. The Dutch budget is about 50 billion Euros while Apple has at least 4-5 times that sitting in cash. Apple getting fined doesn't affect any of us because it's a rounding error in their books and is probably just considered a cost of doing business because everybody seems to sue everyone else. But as to whether they've met requirements, everything but ACM's unofficial words say that.

 

[tobybrut]

That’s why their operators enjoy a dominant market position, yes.

? So for what is it then?

What the 27% is for has been mentioned so many times in this thread, and not just by me at least 3 or 4 times, that it's getting ridiculous. Apple has a policy where free apps are free. To subsidize those free apps, Apple charges 30% for paid apps or 15% for apps that make less than $1 million per year. That includes in-app purchases because not to do so makes it easy to circumvent the paid-app fee. Think about it. If Apple charged only a fee for initial download and not for in-app purchase, what developer in his right mind would ever charge for initial download? They'd make their app free to download, but in order to have any useful functionality, they would require the user to pay in-app a fee to unlock it.

That is why Apple charges a fee for in-app purchases. It's to prevent an app that is really a paid app from freeloading on the App Store. It's not fair to the other paid app developers who follow the rules properly and pay their 15/30%. Why should a "dating" app get to get free downloads, but rake in tons of money from what is an in-app purchase in order to circumvent the initial download fee and effectively freeload on the App Store?

The 27% is NOT for payment processing. That is the 3% that Apple discounted. When Apple does the payment processing, they incur a 3% charge from Mastercard or Visa or whomever and pass that on to the developer. But since the dating apps can choose to use another payment processor, Apple removes the 3% because they're not doing the processing. The 27% is the fee for in-app purchase to prevent developers from cheating by making initial downloads free. If Apple did not charge an in-app fee, they would never collect another penny from the App Store because every app would be free to download.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

As of this moment no court has found Apple’s solution to be non-compliant so Apple acting in good fiath or bad faith is only a matter of opinion. I’ll check back in a few months or a year to see how our opinions on this fared. I do predict, when a court finally rules on this, Apple’s proposed solutions will be found to have been in compliance and possibly the original ACM decision will be found to be flawed. Certainly their decision to market test Apple’s proposed solutions with their petitioning competitors will be scrutinized by the court. Remember this can theoretically go all the way to the ECJ so there is plenty of time yet for fortunes to turn and interesting details to emerge.

The ECJ won’t turn it up, by the time it gets in ECJ, DMA will already be law.

Especially considering the EU commission have an investigation in to apple over anti competitive practices, making it unlikely for the Dutch higher courts to intervene

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Market effects that can be observed BUT, quite interestingly, not defined by any numeric value. It becomes clearer why EU companies are small compared to others. Trying not to run afoul of 27 sets of non-enumerated but locally interpreted rules must be challenging.

Because numeric values doesn’t say anything of value. You must have as objectively definition of dominating position( completely legal) and how you can observe abuse of said position in the market.

EU companies are smaller in general because bank loans are the bulk of capital used for investment. And EU sets the standard, the 27 member states are allowed to then interpret this and put in to law. If there’s a disagreement it can go to the EUCJ to rule if the state have the correct interpretation.

1. It was brought up by someone else in this thread, not me. Many people in this thread are assuming this was part of the problem. I don't know if it's a secret requirement or not, though it's not a documented requirement.

It’s not part of the problem, it’s covered in an EU probe, and therefore off limits to ACM.

2. The requirements aren't clear because the proposals were rejected. By the very wording of the requirements, Apple met them. I've said this over and over again, the dual binary issue was NOT in the requirement, so there was no obligation on the first proposal for Apple to allow only a single binary. That is the very definition of a bad requirement because it wasn't listed. When Apple proposed it, it was rejected. Why? There was nothing in the docs that said it had to be a single binary. Rejecting both proposals were basically the ACM moving the goal posts. There is no changing anyone's minds on this one unless someone can show an actual document produced before Apple made that change to show they weren't in compliance. ACM clearly didn't mention it ahead of time and changed the rules in the middle of the game. How would that be Apple's fault?

They didn’t, if you read the long text that ACM and the court. Even tho two binaries aren’t stated as not allowed, it isn’t a reasonable requirement and easily identified as anti competitive rule when it’s easier to have one binary etc

3. I really don't give a crap about fines. Apple's got more money than ACM does and they can afford to fight in court however much they want to. Heck, Apple has more cash and convertible securities lying around than the entire Dutch annual budget. I looked it up. The Dutch budget is about 50 billion Euros while Apple has at least 4-5 times that sitting in cash. Apple getting fined doesn't affect any of us because it's a rounding error in their books and is probably just considered a cost of doing business because everybody seems to sue everyone else. But as to whether they've met requirements, everything but ACM's unofficial words say that.

Read the legal text the finding AND the order. The order is to solve the finding. If the solution still present the same problem in the finding then it’s not a solution.

And apple can’t fight the courts however they want. Look up googles anti competitive fight and how it ended up as they acted arrogantly. The judge is not passive in EU courts. They are very involved in the process.

 

[Pilot Jones]

The Netherland has a population of 17 million, even if every single one of them were iPhone users, Apple could easily afford to lose them and it would only be less than 1.5% of its iPhone total user. Apple's lawyer has on multiple occasion threaten to pull out of the UK or other EU countries. This is the time to show them the power.

Trust the Wisdom on Macumors. Pull out of the Netherland.

Apple didn't become worth a few trillion dollars by swinging around a big stick and pulling out of entire markets casually.

They're far too intelligent for that and will definitely figure out a solution that's a lot more strategic and rewarding in the long term.

 

[tobybrut]

They didn’t, if you read the long text that ACM and the court. Even tho two binaries aren’t stated as not allowed, it isn’t a reasonable requirement and easily identified as anti competitive rule when it’s easier to have one binary etc

As an engineer, you would not think this was reasonable to reject it since it was not a requirement. As a developer, you know how easy it is to create two builds. All it takes is either a second make file and/or just setting a flag within the code to optionally include the necessary code or not. Having dual binaries is the logical engineering choice because it does not unnecessarily expose dangerous code outside the target market. I would have recommended requiring two binaries if I were the product manager just as the most logical course of action. There is no undue burden Apple is placing on the app developers.

Sorry, no. I don’t buy it. The requirement wasn’t there, so the ACM has some unspoken agenda. Again, changing goal posts. You’re never going to talk anyone out of that because it’s plain for all to see. Unless you can show documents that originally required a single binary, then the ACM is not being at all reasonable.

 

[deevey]

? Apple brazenly made up a new 27% commission in response to the ACM‘s order.

No, they reduced their commissions by 3% as they would not be processing payments.

 

[I7guy]

I guess that is the reason the EU is coming up with the DMA, so that even Apple will feel the pinch when they do not follow regulations. For instance, if they don't open up NFC to 3rd parties, they could be fined 3.6 billion euros for the first offence. The fine doubles if they continue to do the same mistake and so on. Oh! Apple will start caring. That is a given.

It is possible the EU will drive apple out. More of a loss for the residents of the EU as they will be stuck with android. Plus apple will tangle this up in the courts as they know how to do. Or apple could disable the nfc completely and forego apple pay in the eu. Who knows? Maybe some draconian action be apple will cause these regulators to feel the pinch.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It is possible the EU will drive apple out. More of a loss for the residents of the EU as they will be stuck with android. Plus apple will tangle this up in the courts as they know how to do. Or apple could disable the nfc completely and forego apple pay in the eu. Who knows? Maybe some draconian action be apple will cause these regulators to feel the pinch.

You honestly think EU will allow an American company to hold it hostage? This will not pass the EMA irrespective of current ruling. Apple will be forced to open it up in 1 year ether way