Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

EU Accuses Apple's App Store Steering Rules of Violating DMA and Opens Investigation into Developer Fees

ProbablyDylan said:
Right. And your previous point in post# 276 was that software cost money to develop, in defense of their 15%/30% tax on software sales. It would sound as though, somehow, tens of billions of dollars annually isn't enough to develop iOS.
Click to expand...
You’re definitely misunderstanding me here.

That’s plenty of money, you’re the one that is drawing the line from the money made to *mandating* it be used for function X or Y in a company.

So what part of the regulation states the legalese equivalent of “they make this much money selling hardware, therefore those funds should be legally allocated to cover operational costs of this platform so that developers don’t have to pay X amount”.

I’m trying to understand the legal or business operation path from “they make a **** ton of money selling hardware”, and how it gets to “operating costs for the App Store *should* be covered solely by hardware sales so that devs don’t pay for any of the services”.

Draw me that line please
 
ProbablyDylan said:
Right, but it's not like these budgets are carved into stone.

Microsoft makes their money in Azure like you said. Seems like Microsoft has no problem taking revenue generated by Azure and spending it on not-Azure, like on Windows and shady OpenAI dealings.
Click to expand...
But you’re looking to *legally madate* that Microsoft do so? Think carefully about what you’re saying here.
 
Ethosik said:
That is what competition is. You knew from the beginning that Apple's approach was closed. If that doesn't work for you, you made a bad decision with your purchase.
Click to expand...

I always find this logic overly simplistic. I'm not convinced, for example, that most people buy their iPhone because it's a closed ecosystem. Some might, others will buy it because it's cool, or because their friends and family use it, or because they don't want to change etc etc etc

People don't necessarily have to agree with everything Apple does just because they decided to buy an iPhone. Once you go to the regulatory level there's even less reason to use this as the ultimate arbiter.

Ethosik said:
People like to use store analogies here. Target is the only store of its kind close to me. I need to travel 20 miles for an alternative. I don't think that is very convenient for competition!
Click to expand...

Unless Target is actively preventing the creation of new stores or services available to you, and you justifying this on the basis that you could always move into other available houses, I'm not sure the analogy tracks.

Ethosik said:
Also, I don't think forcing people to put their house on sale and requiring them to move in order to get a different high speed internet company a helpful way to encourage competition! But yes, let's put all of our efforts in to taking Apple DOWN! Not the true monopolies. I hate that I only have access to Spectrum.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're based, but similarly unless these companies are actively preventing the competition from operating I'm not sure this is a relevant comparison. If they do, then yes, someone should absolutely do something about that.

But the bottom line is that the DMA doesn't require there to be competition: no one is forcing anyone to open an app store, as long as they have the option to do so if they want to (here's where we refer back to your Target example).
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
NT1440 said:
You’re definitely misunderstanding me here.

That’s plenty of money, you’re the one that is drawing the line from the money made to *mandating* it be used for function X or Y in a company.

So what part of the regulation states the legalese equivalent of “they make this much money selling hardware, therefore those funds should be legally allocated to cover operational costs of this platform so that developers don’t have to pay X amount”.

I’m trying to understand the legal or business operation path from “they make a **** ton of money selling hardware” gets to “operating costs for the App Store *should* be covered solely by hardware sales so that devs don’t pay for any of the services”.

Draw me that line please
Click to expand...

Agreed, we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not advocating for anyone to tell Apple how to spend their money.

The point I'm trying to make is that the assertion of Apple needing to charge their arbitrary fees to pay for the development of iOS is nonsense due to how much they make on their hardware.

I get that they're not running a charity. And developers should pay for services rendered. But they should have the option to get those services elsewhere if they so please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
spazzcat said:
Didn't they have over 85% of the computer OS market?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. My point was that some people in these types of discussions assume monopoly means a company/product needs to have 100% ("mono" as in one, only, singular) control of a market which is simply not the case. How much market control is needed can vary by country, case, court, etc. Also, a company doesn't necessarily have to be a monopoly to be charged with antitrust violations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlc1978 and AppliedMicro
Ctrlos said:
Why make it so complex though? Why not just scrap it altogether? Doesn’t the dev already pay a subscription for access to SDKs and will already have bought a Mac. Isn’t this enough if they’re not using avenues of distribution?
Click to expand...
How much do you think it costs to constantly maintain, secure, and improve iOS?
 
d686546s said:
I always find this logic overly simplistic. I'm not convinced, for example, that most people buy their iPhone because it's a closed ecosystem. Some might, others will buy it because it's cool, or because their friends and family use it, or because they don't want to change etc etc etc

People don't necessarily have to agree with everything Apple does just because they decided to buy an iPhone. Once you go to the regulatory level there's even less reason to use this as the ultimate arbiter.



Unless Target is actively preventing the creation of new stores or services available to you, and you justifying this on the basis that you could always move into other available houses, I'm not sure the analogy tracks.



I don't know where you're based, but similarly unless these companies are actively preventing the competition from operating I'm not sure this is a relevant comparison. If they do, then yes, someone should absolutely do something about that.

But the bottom line is that the DMA doesn't require there to be competition: no one is forcing anyone to open an app store, as long as they have the option to do so if they want to (here's where we refer back to your Target example).
Click to expand...
Is Apple preventing the creation of new competitors? A third phone vendor can come into play any time. More focus should be spent there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfountain72
webkit said:
Perhaps. My point was that some people in these types of discussions assume monopoly means a company/product needs to have 100% ("mono" as in one, only, singular) control of a market which is simply not the case. How much market control is needed can vary by country, case, court, etc. Also, a company doesn't necessarily have to be a monopoly to be charged with antitrust violations.
Click to expand...
*5% is one thing. But
Beautyspin said:
The DMA is not for consumers, at least not directly. It is for competition, which will help the consumers indirectly resulting in price reduction or feature improvement. However, the main goal of the DMA is to foster competition. They believe that it will unlock the potential and increase the trade in the EU by several folds.

"Evidence suggests that unlocking the full potential of the platform economy could increase EU27 GDP by between EUR 43.7 and EUR 174.5 billion from 2019 to 2029. Increased R&D resulting from a more diverse pool of innovation could create between 136,387 and 294,236 new jobs."

Click to expand...
Who defines what is enough/vs not enough competition? Is that specified in the DMA somewhere? Three competitors? Five competitors? Ten? When Apple's market share drops below 50%? How about 35%? https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
 
If you want to download an app, the App Store was the only option until recently.
Click to expand...
False you can buy an Android
SanderEvers said:
EU prices include VAT and often additional EU fees. (between 19-30% in total, depending on the country. US prices don't include sales tax)


False, you can make local backups of your data to your PC/Mac and store them anywhere you want.


False you can buy an Android


False, Apple does not have a monopoly. AND see previous answer.


A lot of Android devices are even more expensive.
Click to expand...
Oh, I did not know that Android was an app store …
 
  • Like
Reactions: cupcakes2000 and AppliedMicro
Account25476 said:
Let’s be honest: Apple sells many products and services in Europe at prices that are 25% higher than in the US and much of the rest of the world.
If you want to back up data, iCloud is the only option.
If you want to download an app, the App Store was the only option until recently.
Apple has been dictates for decades how its products are used, creating and maintaining a monopoly by forcing users to use their products and services.
I’m not saying this needs to stop, but either offer prices comparable to the competition or continue charging high prices like now but open up to competition.
Click to expand...
Users choose to buy their products. Apple created the repo its. Don’t like it go to Android. Fact is the EU is just using this to level the playing for EU companies and make money through fines in the process. Companies may think twice about dealing with the EU.
 
hagjohn said:
R&D takes money. If you are just going to be fined for doing well in business, why bother? You cannot have real competition if the EU keeps coming in and interfering and picking the winners and losers.
Click to expand...
Apple has been accused of stifling innovation in the DOJ complaint. Maybe they are spending so much on R&D on how to do planned obsolescence without getting caught, how to raise more walls around their garden, how to meet the minimal standards without getting penalized, how to sherlock apps, how to screw over competition, such kind of things? /s
 
Ctrlos said:
Remove myself from a huge supranational market and turn off 500m potential customers forever

Or

Improve my product in the face of competition, spurning innovation in the process and benefit my entire customer base

🤔
Click to expand...
You're just thinking about it from the consumer's point of view. Have you even spared a thought for the shareholders?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ctrlos
NT1440 said:
You can claim the rate should be lower, and maybe now nearly 20 years later it should be, but that 30% was a *****ing steal* compared to what it used to be like to sell software before the App Store.
Click to expand...
It is.
Not everyone is a small indie developer.
We don‘t live in 20 years ago anymore.
NT1440 said:
What % would make you happy? How much do you think payment processing and hosting (let alone the compliance burden involved in both) are worth to an indie developer?
Click to expand...
No needs to prescribe a fair rate by law, when it can be determined through competition.
Suffixe to say, it would approach a 10% or so charged by other transaction processors for software.
jlc1978 said:
First of all, for most developers it's 15% and that covers hosting, transaction fees, tax compliance, etc. plus access to a very profitable user base.
Click to expand...
And for most apps and (digital) in-app sales sold, it is - or would be - 30%.
 
surferfb said:
Every minute spent by Apple engineers working on implementing this stuff isn’t spending time fixing bugs or on new features
Click to expand...
Yeah.
surferfb said:
And my point is the EU compliance team’s time would be better spent doing literally anything else.
Click to expand...

So is my point to Apple. Which are spending their bloody time on
There is literally no technical need for these entitlements whatsoever.
They only serve on purpose: anticompetitive charging of commissions.

Carefully crafted after having been found guilty by the Dutch consumer regulator, the US court and the European commission. Apple could settle the issue very simply, once and for all, by getting rid of their prohibitions on linking out and beginning to compete fairly according to this consensus emerging in many countries at the same time. Yet there’s zero indication of them “spending their time” on that.

👉🏻 And that why deserve more and more regulatory pressure, more and more new antitrust laws piled on top of them.

surferfb said:
iOS has literally built since 2008 assuming one App Store - massive amounts of engineering support was needed to make it function properly. It’s not like they just flipped a switch and it worked.
Click to expand...
It literally is just a switch to be flipped.

And a few additional warning dialogues that Apple decided to slap on it.
Installation of apps downloaded from a web site from a web site have worked since 2011 or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davide_eu
@Brett said:
Fact is the EU is just using this to level the playing for EU companies and make money through fines in the process.
Click to expand...
Not fact. Nonsens. The concept of avoiding fines by obeying the law can’t be lost on you.
And Apple and other gatekeepers are given ample opportunity for compliance and to avoid fines.
@Brett said:
Companies may think twice about dealing with the EU.
Click to expand...
They may think twice about dealing with many more developed countries soon (UK, Japan…)
 
  • Like
Reactions: davide_eu and MLVC
spazzcat said:
Many things are better by regulations even here in the godless US.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And while the idea of self regulating market is nice it DOES need at least certain amount of regulation when entities get too big. telcos and media companies and banks were already split in the past (and now they let them mega back 🤦‍♂️).

Many here are arguing that UE is overegulating and while it's debatable I'd say EU is still quite far from being excessive...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back