Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What the EU going to do if apple and google decide to pull out? Because of onerous regulations and loss of revenue.
Nothing. why would they treat apple and google differently?

If EU doesn’t even allow Russia to bully it with oil and gas, then why would they allow apple and google to do it?

Many companies have threatened to leave and EU have ignored them completely
 
What the EU going to do if apple and google decide to pull out? Because of onerous regulations and loss of revenue.
The EU is going to have a problem if Apple and Google are pulling all their services out of it.
Then again, someone has to act first on that. And it‘s certainly not going to be Google (Since Android usually does allow „sideloading“). Apple dropping out of the EU would yank approximately out a fifth of their global revenue - with great uncertainty whether they‘ll ever be able to capture that market share back after they decide to reenter the market.

In the end, (EU) officials and regulators are more patient and slower to act than shareholders on that. Pulling out of profitable markets just because you want to make to point against regulation is a vengeful pipe dream.

There’s also a long history of Apple complying with local regulation - even if they don’t like it (just two examples):

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/01/iphone-russian-app-list-device-setup/

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/02/28/apple-transfers-china-icloud/
 
How so?
The ACM order was made based on exactly that: the dominant market position:
Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position.
We weren't talking about whether Apple has a dominant market position. We were talking about whether Apple's commission was way above their competition.

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).
No reasonable person would believe your position.
 
We were talking about whether Apple's commission was way above their competition.
Considering the fees other payment processors/acquirer charge for online payments, they clearly are. I’m quite sure Match Group don’t pay 30% commission on any other way or platform they’re offering their dating services through.
No reasonable person would believe your position.
Maybe you’re not reasonable on that then.

Anyone else can read the preliminary ruling (especially items 10.1, 11.1 and 15) and convince themselves.
 
The EU is going to have a problem if Apple and Google are pulling all their services out of it.
Yes, a very big problem for it's citizens.
Then again, someone has to act first on that. And it‘s certainly not going to be Google (Since Android usually does allow „sideloading“). Apple dropping out of the EU would yank approximately out a fifth of their global revenue - with great uncertainty whether they‘ll ever be able to capture that market share back after they decide to reenter the market.

In the end, (EU) officials and regulators are more patient and slower to act than shareholders on that. Pulling out of profitable markets just because you want to make to point against regulation is a vengeful pipe dream.

There’s also a long history of Apple complying with local regulation - even if they don’t like it (just two examples):

https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/01/iphone-russian-app-list-device-setup/

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/02/28/apple-transfers-china-icloud/
Nobody ever said Apple shouldn't comply with local laws. They have to. Doesn't mean some laws are dumb, idiotic and stupid.
 
Yes, a very big problem for it's citizens.
But why are we discussing that?

Is there any real-world indication or threat that Apple may drop out of the EU, thereby losing many billions of dollars of revenue and earnings every year?
When talking about Apple „pulling all their services“, you‘re not claiming they‘d get away with that and still sell as many phones as today, are you?

Apple pulling out of the EU is a theoretical possibility - and a call championed by keyboard warriors on online forums believing that such vengeful retaliation would be an appropriate corporate action.

It’s not. As any business, Apple’s management have to act in the interests of the business. Dropping billions of very profitable business without need, being forced to or receiving financial compensation isn’t.
 
Last edited:
Considering the fees other payment processors/acquirer charge for online payments, they clearly are. I’m quite sure Match Group don’t pay 30% commission on any other way or platform they’re offering their dating services through.
Again, the commission isn't only for payment processing.

Anyone else can read the preliminary ruling (especially items 10.1, 11.1 and 15) and convince themselves.
None of those three items claims that it is unreasonably discriminating to charge for some things and not others. Again, that's a ridiculous claim. If I run a store, I can give away free ice cream and charge for yogurt.
 
[...]

Apple pulling out of the EU is a theoretical possibility - and a call championed by keyboard warriors on online forums believing that such vengeful retaliation would be an appropriate corporate action.

[...]
Apple already threatened to pull of the UK. Why do business in a hostile business climate that will potentially cost them billions of dollars?
 
And if Apple loses billions because of the nfc mandate and apple loses billions because of the app store, commission and side-loading mandates...
It‘s not as if they‘d be losing billions. They‘d just make a bit less profit because of such rules.

Both the App Store as well as Apple Pay are already developed and running around the world. According to many people on this forum, they offer a superior and more secure user experience than more open solutions (such as the ones on Android). Apps that are available globally are being reviewed by Apple anyway.

Yes, Apple may lose some revenue and earnings by this rule (though it may also just encourage more people / companies to buy their devices, once the platform has become more open). But how is shutting down locally supposedly a more favourable option?

Unless Apple shut down parts of their services everywhere in the world, the marginal (or „additional“) costs of continuing operate in the EU are very small. They are not going to save much money by withdrawing from Europe - compared to the revenues and earnings from that region.

Now, there may be a point in withdrawing from Europe to prevent opening up the platform and prevent App installations from third-party sources and non-IAP transactions in Apps elsewhere. To prevent customers in other markets from benefitting from „sideloading“ due to the EU requirement. Basically: withdraw from 20% of the global market (EU) to continue charging as before in the other 80%.

But here’s the thing: Hardware sales are depending on provision of app installation services, and they are making so much from those that their bottom line will be negatively impacted.

Also, other jurisdictions - including the US and Japan - are preparing or likely to adopt their own regulation on App Store(s) to eventually allow sideloading and/or prohibit requiring developers of using their operator’s own in-app purchasing system.

Besides all that, it is doubtful whether Apple is going to lose much revenue even if (convenient) sideloading is allowed, since most apps, even on „sideloadable“ Android are, as a matter of fact, obtained through the dominant stores.
 
It‘s not as if they‘d be losing billions. They‘d just make a bit less profit because of such rules.
Can you tell us all how much? Because frankly if their earnings are to be slashed, why should they want to continue to invest in such a hostile business climate.
Both the App Store as well as Apple Pay are already developed and running around the world. According to many people on this forum, they offer a superior and more secure user experience than more open solutions (such as the ones on Android). Apps that are available globally are being reviewed by Apple anyway.

Yes, Apple may lose some revenue and earnings by this rule (though it may also just encourage more people / companies to buy their devices, once the platform has become more open). But how is shutting down locally supposedly a more favourable option?

Unless Apple shut down parts of their services everywhere in the world, the marginal (or „additional“) costs of continuing operate in the EU are very small. They are not going to save much money by withdrawing from Europe - compared to the revenues and earnings from that region.

Now, there may be a point in withdrawing from Europe to prevent opening up the platform and prevent App installations from third-party sources and non-IAP transactions in Apps elsewhere. To prevent customers in other markets from benefitting from „sideloading“ due to the EU requirement. Basically: withdraw from 20% of the global market (EU) to continue charging as before in the other 80%.

But here’s the thing: Hardware sales are depending on provision of app installation services, and they are making so much from those that their bottom line will be negatively impacted.

Also, other jurisdictions - including the US and Japan - are preparing or likely to adopt their own regulation on App Store(s) to eventually allow sideloading and/or prohibit requiring developers of using their operator’s own in-app purchasing system.

Besides all that, it is doubtful whether Apple is going to lose much revenue even if (convenient) sideloading is allowed, since most apps, even on „sideloadable“ Android are, as a matter of fact, obtained through the dominant stores.
See above.
 
Can you tell us all how much?
Of course not. If I could, I‘d be working as a financial analyst in my spare time, instead of frequenting these forums.
Because frankly if their earnings are to be slashed, why should they want to continue to invest in such a hostile business climate.
…says any monopolist whose powers are being curtailed.

I wouldn’t say it’s a hostile environment. They don’t want to stop Apple from competing. They just want to regulate their dominant market position where Apple has it and is taking unfair/anticompetitive advantage of it and prevent others from competing. Apple know that well enough (though they may not publicly admit to that).
 
Because the last I looked apple wasn’t found for anti-competitive practices or abuse of power. (As it relates to this discussion)
The ACM and the judge did:

Wat betreft dit deel van de voorwaarden volgt de voorzieningenrechter het standpunt van de ACM dat Apple met deze voorwaarden misbruik maakt van haar economische machtspositie op de markt voor appstorediensten voor datingappaanbieders

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:12851&showbutton=true

Whereas the DMA proposal also targets „unfair“ business practices - but explicitly complements existing law to also cover businesses that don’t necessarily have a dominant position according to competition law. However, that law makes explicit reference to operating systems and software application stores (which Apple is developing/running) and defines size parameters that cover only a very limited number of in their uppermost tier of „gatekeepers“. It seeks to address „the power by core platform service providers often being misused by means of unfair behavior vis-à-vis economically dependent business users and customers“. There’s only so many (few!) companies covered by that law and Apple is evidently the prime target in mind - and with their current policies would also be one of the most egregious violators of that future regulation.

We can clearly infer from that law and its wording that EU deems Apple‘s practices „unfair“.
 
Last edited:
The ACM and the judge did:

Wat betreft dit deel van de voorwaarden volgt de voorzieningenrechter het standpunt van de ACM dat Apple met deze voorwaarden misbruik maakt van haar economische machtspositie op de markt voor appstorediensten voor datingappaanbieders

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:12851&showbutton=true

Whereas the DMA proposal also targets „unfair“ business practices - but explicitly complements existing law to also cover businesses that don’t necessarily have a dominant position according to competition law. However, that law makes explicit reference to operating systems and software application stores (which Apple is developing/running) and defines size parameters that cover only a very limited number of in their uppermost tier of „gatekeepers“. It seeks to address „the power by core platform service providers often being misused by means of unfair behavior vis-à-vis economically dependent business users and customers“. There’s only so many (few!) companies covered by that law and Apple is evidently the prime target in mind - and with their current policies would also be one of the most egregious violators of that future regulation.

We can clearly infer from that law and its wording that EU deems Apple‘s practices „unfair“.
In the US, where apple is based, there has been no legal action by a government agency in regards to anti-competitive or monopolistic business practices. And you I’m sure, are well aware of the continuing legal action between epic and apple.

In other words to force change, new laws have to be crafted, which in the US we will see where this goes.
 
In the US, where apple is based, there has been no legal action by a government agency in regards to anti-competitive or monopolistic business practices
Apple has significant and durable market power in the mobile operating system market. Apple’s dominance in this market, where it controls the iOS mobile operating system that runs on Apple mobile devices, has enabled it to control all software distribution to iOS devices. As a result, Apple exerts monopoly power in the mobile app store market (...)

Apple leverages its control of iOS and the App Store to create and enforce barriers to competition and discriminate against and exclude rivals while preferencing its own offerings. Apple also uses its power to exploit app developers through misappropriation of competitively sensitive information and to charge app developers supra-competitive prices within the App Store


found the U.S. House of Representatives judiciary antitrust subcommittee in 2020.

And now politicians are taking action against that.

Said the bill‘s sponsor, Senator Richard Blumenthal: „Apple makes 150 times in profit what it takes to run the App Store. That is what we call monopolist rent.

While that is not be a government „agency“, they are right in the process of empowering such an agency (the FTC).

I consider that part of the (currently ongoing) process of curtailing Apple’s power, as I said above.
 
Last edited:
Apple has significant and durable market power in the mobile operating system market. Apple’s dominance in this market, where it controls the iOS mobile operating system that runs on Apple mobile devices, has enabled it to control all software distribution to iOS devices. As a result, Apple exerts monopoly power in the mobile app store market (...)

Apple leverages its control of iOS and the App Store to create and enforce barriers to competition and discriminate against and exclude rivals while preferencing its own offerings. Apple also uses its power to exploit app developers through misappropriation of competitively sensitive information and to charge app developers supra-competitive prices within the App Store


found the U.S. House of Representatives judiciary antitrust subcommittee in 2020.

And now politicians are taking action against that.

Said the bill‘s sponsor, Senator Richard Blumenthal:

Apple makes 150 times in profit what it takes to run the App Store. That is what we call monopolist rent.
As I said, in the US where apple is based they have not been legally found to be in violation of any antitrust laws. The above is an opinion as apple has to be tried first.

It’s no secret apple has a legal monopoly on apple products.
 
have not been legally found to be in violation of any antitrust laws.
Never claimed that they have. I don‘t even remember arguing about that (it is also important to remember that not every dominant market position or monopolist power is forbidden or punishable by law).
It’s no secret apple has a legal monopoly on apple products.
Yes - but that has never been the salient issue.

The salient issue legislators and the Dutch regulator are trying to address is that Apple has made and enforces themselves as monopolists on distributing other‘s products (e.g, they are monopolists on distributing dating app for iOS) and associated services or handling associated payments.
 
The salient issue legislators and the Dutch regulator are trying to address is that Apple has made and enforces themselves as monopolists on distributing other‘s products (e.g, they are monopolists on distributing dating app for iOS) and associated services or handling associated payments.
No, it's not. If it was about that, they'd be breaking up the App Store. But they're not.

The "salient" issue is that Dutch regulators have found that Apple has used its "market dominance" in smartphones as leverage to exclude competitors from the dating app payment provider market. Despite everyone projecting their pet peeves about commissions and sideloading, it's really a simple, narrow finding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
If it was about that, they'd be breaking up the App Store
Dominant players need not necessarily be broken.
The "salient" issue is that Dutch regulators have found that Apple has used its "market dominance" in smartphones as leverage to exclude competitors from the dating app payment provider market. Despite everyone projecting their pet peeves about commissions and sideloading, it's really a simple, narrow finding.
No, there‘s certainly more to it than that. Just read their announcement and the court order.
First, parts of the ACM‘s order are currently suspended, as is publication thereof.
Second, Apple‘s „confiscation of the customer relationship“ as a commissionaire (they customers becomes a customers of Apple‘s, rather than the dating app provider) is also discussed in detail, how Apple positions themselves as commission agent between dating app provider and customers and hinder these providers from providing service, support and security to their customers.

I‘ve mentioned it before: There is no (to my knowledge) no general revenue commission on the App Store.

According to Apple‘s terms „Apple shall be entitled to the following commissions in consideration for its services as Your agent and/or commissionaire under this Schedule 2:
(a) For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User. Solely for auto-renewing subscription purchases made by customers who have accrued greater than one year of paid subscription service within a Subscription Group (as defined below) and notwithstanding any Retention Grace Periods or Renewal Extension Periods, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to fifteen percent (15%)“

?
If a dating app providers refers users outside the app and/or settles its payments without Apple and their IAP system, I fail to see how Apple are acting as commissionaire or agent.

The transaction would become one between the dating app provider and the customer (and the non-Apple/not affiliated with Apple) payment services provider.

? Why should Apple under their own current terms be entitled to a (27%) commission, if they aren’t involved in the transaction at all?
 
Last edited:
Never claimed that they have. I don‘t even remember arguing about that (it is also important to remember that not every dominant market position or monopolist power is forbidden or punishable by law).

Yes - but that has never been the salient issue.

The salient issue legislators and the Dutch regulator are trying to address is that Apple has made and enforces themselves as monopolists on distributing other‘s products (e.g, they are monopolists on distributing dating app for iOS) and associated services or handling associated payments.
No it’s narrower than you portray it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.