Dutch Regulators to Meet With Dating App Providers to Assess Apple's Plan for Alternate In-App Payment Options

[Michael Scrip]

I don’t believe businesses earn from the App Store but from themselves as I explained also. Meaning, its explanation is fallacious and it’s easy to demonstrate that it is.

Sure... there are companies where their app is just a conduit to their business. Like you say... Spotify's business is selling music subscriptions. The app is merely the consumption mechanism.

But there are apps where the apps themselves are the business. You know... where developers sell an actual app or sell a subscription to an app.

And those developers pay more fees to Apple as more people buy the apps. That's what he meant by progressive.

They more apps they sell... the more they end up paying Apple in fees.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The way I think of it is, without a Spotify app in the App Store, how many iOS customers would Spotify have?

Don’t know. Neither do you.

For instance. Cold I say that If it was not for Qualcom modem embedded in the iPhones, Apple success would be in doupt? What about the displays built by LG and others?

You see, such reasoning is futile. Leads to nothing.

The basis of your reasoning is that if A implies B than not A implies not B. That is proven to be logically incorrect. Hence in my mind I don’t see the logic on your reasoning … emotion … maybe.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sure... there are companies where their app is just a conduit to their business. Like you say... Spotify's business is selling music subscriptions. The app is merely the consumption mechanism.

That is seams to be the case of the services in question in this thread.

But there are apps where the apps themselves are the business. You know... where developers sell an actual app or sell a subscription to an app. And those developers pay more fees to Apple as more people buy the apps.

Agreed. If the App itself is the asset being sold or subscribed to than its progressive. But we are moving targets here, being progressive or not is irrelevant to the discussion In my opinion.

The statement was made as a general one, applied to all digital business with Apps in the App Store. Do you agree with it or not? Because this seams to be the stance of Apple across any and all digital business with Apps on the App Store. Currently, anything vehicled through Apps is potentially subject to be considered sold by the App Store. From a Uber ride, a date arrangement, a stream … up and down to the kinds of things you mentioned.

Whats your stance on the subject?

 

[mrochester]

Don’t know. Neither do you.

For instance. Cold I say that If it was not for Qualcom modem embedded in the iPhones, Apple success would be in doupt? What about the displays built by LG and others?

You see, such reasoning is futile. Leads to nothing.

The basis of your reasoning is that if A implies B than not A implies not B. That is proven to be logically incorrect. Hence in my mind I don’t see the logic on your reasoning … emotion … maybe.

But that exercise helps to determine who holds the power in the relationship and who gets to the agenda and terms and conditions.

 

[ian87w]

It's interesting how influential these dating apps companies that they can have the government specifically forced Apple to apply exclusivity for them.
I bet those dating apps companies have plenty of stuff against the politicians....

 

[LarxJo]

Welcome to how business works! You maximise profits and minimise expenditure.

What I don't get is people, blinded fans supporting Apple (having an incredible power, unlimited resources) but wanting to burn developers (small companies, local companies, all with limited resources) for doing similar things.

They kind of depict local or small companies as being Satan while Apple would be God...

 

[Nuno Lopes]

But that exercise helps to determine who holds the power in the relationship and who gets to the agenda and terms and conditions.

I don't think its necessary to embark of fallacious reasoning to ascertain that. Its quite obvious given the current regulation conditions who holds the absolute power in the relationship between Apple and third digital services is Apple. A power sustained by the market share of their computing devices, across the globe, in certain regions reaching 50% o peoples pockets.

Heck, in the current landscape Apple holds the absolute power over the device you have in your pocket. The only way to "escape", is not to have the device in your pocket. Which basically confirms the power.

But that is not the actual question in my mind. The actual question is if Apple should be trusted or not to use their market power in the device space to then pressure and charge the music, banking, dating, teaching, transportation and who knows what else industries the way it is doing. Hence, its a case to be analysed by Anti Trust. To what measure is exercising such power this way is just ... remember the vehicle metaphor. This is not a short term game, is a very very long game that will define the relationship between you (John Doe) and Big Tech for the next decades if not centuries ... as smart house, smart cars, TVs and so on enter the scene. Will these kinds leveraging ... one market on to thew others get a "free" pass or not.

You may say. Yes, they should. I may think otherwise. We can debate why and or why not.

 

[mrochester]

What I don't get is people, blinded fans supporting Apple (having an incredible power, unlimited resources) but wanting to burn developers (small companies, local companies, all with limited resources) for doing similar things.

They kind of depict local or small companies as being Satan while Apple would be God...

I think the issue here is that developers are using courts and governments to force what they want instead of allowing market powers to determine their fate.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Agreed. If the App itself is the asset being sold or subscribed to then its progressive. Being progressive or not is irrelevant really.

The statement was made as a general one, applied to all digital business with Apps in the App Store. Do you agree with it or not? Because this seams to be the stance of Apple across any and all digital business with Apps on the App Store. Currently, anything vehicled through Apps is potentially subject to be considered sold by the App Store. From a Uber ride, a date arrangement, a stream … up and down to the kinds of things you mentioned.

Whats your stance on the subject?

I was just explaining what they meant by the word progressive... though I didn't need to as they actually explained it in their original comment.

Basically... the more you make... the more you pay.

And that's true. If you don't sell very many apps... you don't pay that much in fees.

Conversely... if you sell a lot of apps... you pay a lot in fees.

That's all I was talking about. The general idea.

I wasn't commenting on the specific topic in this article concerning digital items. That's a whole other topic that I'm not prepared to speak on at this time.

Maybe another time.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Basically... the more you make... the more you pay.

I suppose: the more you pay in costs of making business right? The more the business makes, the more costs it has right?

Well it really depends on what vector you are observing the rise and fall of costs. For instance, if look at unit costs, the more you make globally, quite often the less you pay per unit ... less unit costs, higher profit margins. So you may have higher costs in absolute values, but actually pay the same or less in relative values compared when you sold less. That is good business. You don't want your costs rising ... easting your profits ... you want it to keep it the same if not lower.

You see. Things aren't as simple as it may look.

I don't agree with your interpretation of progressive costs / pay and @mrochester explanation for the concept in context. It simplistic and at cases fallacious.

Cheers.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It really depends what vector you are observing. For instance, if look at unit costs, the more you make, quite often the less you pay per unit. On the other hand, you may pay more totally in absolute values, but actually pay the same or less in relative values.

You see. Things aren't as simple as it may look.

I don't agree with your interpretation of progressive and the authors explanation.

Cheers.

I didn't think his comment required this much discussion.

Cheers to you too.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So without an app on the App Store, how successful would Spotify be amongst iOS users?

Don't know for a fact. Do you know? Suppose, there wasn't an App Store, or iOS users could still use the Spotify app. I just don't know.

Now, its quite obvious that Spotify customers use iPhones as they use other devices. How could you use any digital services without a device ... the Internet is not yet embedded on peoples brains. Are you saying that Apple seams to be using iPhone owners to charge whatever they see fit to Spotify and others? Agreed.

What I don't understand is this. Apple is a fabulous company. The iPhone and iPad are really good devices. It granted them an evaluation of trillions, allowed them to develop new Digital services ... Apple Music and so on.

I don't understand how the practice of blind charging third party digital services for things that the App Store does not service, sell or promote as if they did is good for customers in general ...

I mean, you just said it your self with your rhetorical question. Spotify users using the iPhone, people that like their service, would not benefit then from Spotify leaving the App Store without their App. People that already payed thousands for their Apple devices. These people would either need to sell the device they like to use and go for something else, or use a service that they don't prefer ... Apple Music or something else. This kind of leverage Apple has over third parties, using their device market share, can be clearly anti-competitive. Congrats ... you figured that one out

 

[I7guy]

You are complicating matters. The issue is just one of Apple profiting from the sale of dating arrangements while hasn’t done a thing for it.

Other than use apples ip to make a buck; which of course apple deserves to get paid for.

 

[I7guy]

[…] anti-competitive. […]

Says who? You?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Says who? You?

Ops. My nemesis on this subject is on watch.

Of course me. Are you speaking for someone else but you?

PS: Me and you already debated this subject ad nauseam. Already know all your arguments, you know mine and we still disagree. Don't understand how this kind of comments adds to the exchange I was having with others on this matter.

 

[4nNtt]

Im glad you can see the future. From a private company's perspective, which companies are required to list products on their stores, provide advertising, all completely free? My guess is none. The real question is not what Apple and Google are dong that customers seem to prefer, but why third party app stores aren't proliferating. It would be very easy to set up an App Store that links to Apple's for download purposes only, then manage the payment and subscriptions completely outside of Apple. Kind of the Spotify and Netflix model (sure you can get a subscription to Spotify through the App Store, but virtually no one does, and if the do, they want the trust and security that comes with it, otherwise they go direct through Spotify, so yah, virtually no one).

These clowns should just act and stop whining already

It would be a very small store. What you propose is only allowed for media streaming and reader apps. Those types of apps already are doing all of their transactions outside of the App Store. Other types of apps are not allowed to do this in the store rules.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

.

Now the iMac 2020 BT unit is going bzerk once again. Need to move to the magic keyboard.

 

[4nNtt]

Honestly, this would be a great workaround.
You don't want to pay a commission? Fine, we'll host your app, but you'll only be accessible via a link, not really a part of the store
This circles about the aspect of the monopoly of installs on iOS devices

But at the same time, can you imagine the uproar if people can't easily find their Ubers, Netflixs, Amazons, etc.?

Right. Apple has avoided this for that reason. I think it would be fair to lower the commissions for deep links. Microsoft did that on the Windows Store. If Apple isn’t originating a customer, a discount would be fair. Maybe the app sells for the same price, but the developer gets lower fees on the purchase.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Other than use apples ip to make a buck; which of course apple deserves to get paid for.

The premisse of a Store is using others IP (products and services) to make a buck ... by adding value into the sale. If the Store is the only POS for a product or service in a community there is no way to measure that value as it becomes infinite (infinite valuation). Maybe you care to explain your point better about who is using what IP to enrich their business (valuation) without paying for.

 

[mrochester]

Don't know for a fact. Do you know? Suppose, there wasn't an App Store, or iOS users could still use the Spotify app. I just don't know.

Now, its quite obvious that Spotify customers use iPhones as they use other devices. How could you use any digital services without a device ... the Internet is not yet embedded on peoples brains. Are you saying that Apple seams to be using iPhone owners to charge whatever they see fit to Spotify and others? Agreed.

What I don't understand is this. Apple is a fabulous company. The iPhone and iPad are really good devices. It granted them an evaluation of trillions, allowed them to develop new Digital services ... Apple Music and so on.

I don't understand how the practice of blind charging third party digital services for things that the App Store does not service, sell or promote as if they did is good for customers in general ...

I mean, you just said it your self with your rhetorical question. Spotify users using the iPhone, people that like their service, would not benefit then from Spotify leaving the App Store without their App. People that already payed thousands for their Apple devices. These people would either need to sell the device they like to use and go for something else, or use a service that they don't prefer ... Apple Music or something else. This kind of leverage Apple has over third parties, using their device market share, can be clearly anti-competitive. Congrats ... you figured that one out

There are two different ‘types’ of anti-competitiveness. There is anti-competitiveness that every business demonstrates, preferencing your own bottom line and agenda. Apple are definitely anti-competitive in that sense, but that anti-competitiveness is precisely what leads to a more competitive market as other companies emerge to compete. That, I’d argue, is precisely where the smartphone market currently sits. There’s no business practice Apple currently engages in that would stop a competitor smartphone operating system from existing. Disgruntled app developers could even pool their resources to make it happen.

The other anti-competitiveness is the anti-competitiveness that breaks actual laws and should not happen.

People having to weigh up the pros and cons of purchasing a particular product is the sign of a healthy, competitive market, so a consumer deciding whether iOS or Spotify is more important is the sign of a competitive market. It might not be a choice the consumer wants to have to make but it being a choice is the key point.

 

[I7guy]

The premisse of a Store is using others IP (products and services) to make a buck ... by adding value into the sale. If the Store is the only POS for a product or service in a community there is no way to measure that value as it becomes infinite (infinite valuation). Maybe you care to explain your point better about who is using what IP to enrich their business (valuation) without paying for.

The bolded; the premise of the store is to provide a service period. Making a buck comes from providing the service.

 

[swm]

Apple is charging for services they do not provide (dating).

not exactly. they charge for the payment service (and thus the customer payment "experience") they provide to the app.
and app developers were ok with this cut - as they all agreed to the terms and conditions and do so whenever those are amended - so they can reach a big audience with willingness to pay for the service. it was so from the beginning on.

 

[SBlue1]

so, apple has to list an app for free, and collect no commission on in app purchases? why would apple want to maintain such an app store?

The Apple Store is full of free apps.

 

[falainber]

not exactly. they charge for the payment service (and thus the customer payment "experience") they provide to the app.
and app developers were ok with this cut - as they all agreed to the terms and conditions and do so whenever those are amended - so they can reach a big audience with willingness to pay for the service. it was so from the beginning on.

They charge 30% for a pay service? Are you serious? Shouldn't it be 3%? No wonder one government after another is banning this racket.

 

[mrochester]

The Apple Store is full of free apps.

Which are subsidised by the apps that do cost money.