However, no government has said Apple isn't entitled to payment on it's intellectual property arising from use of the app store. So there's that.
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 Regulators to Meet With Dating App Providers to Assess Apple's Plan for Alternate In-App Payment Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple gets paid for its intellectual property when they sell their devices. They do not have any intellectual property in dating domain.
it depends. seemingly apple offers a bit more than a payment service, that's why is used the word "payment experience". and not just that:
- unified currency handling
- taxation handling
- 1 click secure payment with biometric authorisation, that can be backed with multiple payment frontends (like carrier subscription, e.g. not a debit/credit card)
- solid and well maintained codebase for the payment service with no external dependency.
- simplified user login
- discoverability
and that's for 15%, not 30%
everyone has the right to create a web/db/google campaign to promote their dating service, offering registration and subscription service on that website, even a link to the app store where one can download the free app from apple, that will ask the user for login to access the 'premium' section. and it will pass app store review, etc. and it can be operated w/o giving apple a cut from the subscription fee that has been collected *independently* from the apple app ecosystem.
yet developers choose to use the IAP solution from apple and cough up the 15%. there must be a reason for it, right?
They don’t need an app store. Apple is the one pushing it on the developers. If they allowed alternative app stores and side loading then it would be fair for Apple to charge for their app store services based on the quality of their IP. With no alternatives it's not a service, it's a racket.
I replied to someone who said that Apple charges for a payment service. The problem with your argument is that all the features you listed have nothing to do with the rendering of the dating service. As such, the pay should not be linked with the dating service. Apple can charge whatever they want for their app store service provided that:
* they charge for the service they actually deliver (not for dating service)
* the alernative services (app stores) are allowed to prevent monopolistic abuses
Errr, apps would have to use the same APIs even if they were advertised in a different App Store… apple would still be due their commission.
It's not relevant if you believe Apple is pushing this on developers or not. This is Apples' business model. Apple is under no obligation to allow side-loading and alternative app stores, just like developers are under no obligation to enroll in the developer program to begin with. Even if it's a racket, it's a legal racket.
And while government regulations could force big techs' hand we will have to wait and see what happens.
Makes me wonder who slept with who to get this legislation passed. Must have been kinky too for leverage in decision making
And they charge for developer accounts too. API fee should not be linked to dating service fees, that's a monopolistic abuse.
The courts will decide whether they are or nor. When the company is in a position to force other businesses to pay a share of the profits from the service not directly linked to what Apple is doing that's a clear indication that Apple has monopolistic power. It's not just about the market share. Look at it this way. When Apple is getting 30% (or even 15%) of all revenues in dating business, something is wrong.
No government is likely able to prevent Apple from collecting commission, short of nationalising iOS. But I can’t see any case for that.
No need to nationalize. Just require alternative app stores. If Apple does not like it, they are free to leave smart phone market.
Apple would still be able to collect commission from apps using alternative app stores as those apps will still be using Apple APIs and so on.
No but I’m sure they’ll use push notifications and any number of other apple APIs
Humm. I think you avoided the remarked issue.
The very notion that a business to compete with say Apple Music in equal terms would need to create a smartphone is anti-competitive. Thank the market gods that Apple did not need to come up with say Cars and Airplanes to compete in selling and distributing computers.
I think what it comes down to is that there are businesses that have entered into legally binding agreements with other businesses. Some people, probably those that haven’t run businesses or understand how businesses are run, don’t like those agreements. On top of that, they really don’t like that the answer of “Then why…” being “Because that’s what the businesses agreed on. If they’d agreed on something different, then that’s still why it’d be.” But, that’s pretty much it.
It would be like someone that doesn’t understand molecular density not liking the fact that some balloons go up and some go down BUT, at the same time, not liking the fact that the answer is due to molecular density. They’d be able to provide plentiful points of discussion as to why this shouldn’t be a thing, but, as long as they’re steadfast against acquiring any basic understanding of molecular density, you end up just going in circles
It would be like someone that doesn’t understand molecular density not liking the fact that some balloons go up and some go down BUT, at the same time, not liking the fact that the answer is due to molecular density. They’d be able to provide plentiful points of discussion as to why this shouldn’t be a thing, but, as long as they’re steadfast against acquiring any basic understanding of molecular density, you end up just going in circles
No business needs to create a smartphone to compete with Apple Music. Spotify are not prevented by Apple from putting their app in the App Store and competing directly with Apple Music.