The EU never ruled that app review or fees were "anti-competitive". Even the things that they did rule as "anti-competitive" were only going to be enforced above a certain market cap. Which means the EU understands that smaller businesses use those same "anti-competitive" practices all the time.
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.
Report: Sideloading in Europe Will Still Involve App Review and Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but with apples QA apple out side the store will need to be able to link to there own payment system as many times as they want on all of the buy screens.
Allowed to use stuff other then webkit
Allowed to have emulators
No or very limited content censorship
Nope. Spotify were not expecting to advertise their promotional pricing in the App Store listing.
Apple was telling people they couldn't link or mention their own payment systems or promotional pricing in their own software. In the App itself.
Laughing at these burgers getting all riled up trying to defend a 3 trillion dollar corporation. “Just pull out”, bro, this isn’t some teenager throwing a tantrum, it’s a company that’s responsible to its shareholders. You don’t just pull out of the most valuable market because someone’s feelings got a little hurt. A company, in this case Apple, is free to act how it wants, within law. But the countries are also free to set the rules of their market by law.
LOL...you were originally claiming that 100% of subscription revenue was subject to commission and now you're saying that 99% of subscription NOT being subject to commission is a form of unacceptable "friction".
Spotify complained to the EU about the App Store commission when 99% of their iOS customers paid through the web and were not subject to any commission.
Their complaint wasn't purely about fees.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No matter how powerful any company is, once a GOV decides that it has too much of a lock on a market, that lock will be broken. The score in history is probably GOV (towards) Infinity: Corps 0... else some Corp name from long ago would likely be THE lone Corp that owns everything in 2024.
A corp can "technically comply" with a law but ignore the spirit of it, and that might buy them a little more time to maintain their desired hold on a market... UNTIL the GOV amends the law to close the loopholes. That's also how this often goes in history.
We're taking this like this rumor is fact- and it may be- but not seeming to think about what the EU will do next. Hint: it's probably not going to be "oops, well... we tried."
If you think this is over and some kind of victory for Apple, you might as well start drafting your outrage posts for a new thread not too far down the road in which the EU announces some amendments to the law in support of the intended spirt of why the law was created in the first place... which is apparently NOT met by what is implied to be Apple's response here.
Like the Lightning lock vs. EU law, this is already over. I have to think Apple knows this too. I doubt this rumor is true... but if it is... I'm absolutely expecting EU amendments to follow soon to address this "moving of the deck chairs" response if true.
The spirit of this law is not "you can buy apps from anywhere else, but Apple is entitled to fully receive the same cut of revenue referenced in any other name." It is "you can buy apps from anywhere else, which may very well cut Apple's commission out of the transaction in full..." EXACTLY as it already is for ALL of us when we exercise options to buy apps for our Macs. If I buy some app through the Mac App Store, Apple gets their retailer cut. If I buy the same app from the Developers store, Developer is acting as their own retail store and keeps that cut for themselves.
Among other things, this EU law is attempting to foster the same consumer "choice" we all already have with Mac apps: buy from an Apple managed store or not. If not, Apple doesn't get a big cut anyway... facilitating the opportunity for developer to charge less but still make more... and their customers getting the same great app for a lower price. There is no guarantee that lower prices will come from this change... but much like history has GOVs always breaking the "sole seller" lock, robust competition pretty much always drives prices down.
A corp can "technically comply" with a law but ignore the spirit of it, and that might buy them a little more time to maintain their desired hold on a market... UNTIL the GOV amends the law to close the loopholes. That's also how this often goes in history.
We're taking this like this rumor is fact- and it may be- but not seeming to think about what the EU will do next. Hint: it's probably not going to be "oops, well... we tried."
If you think this is over and some kind of victory for Apple, you might as well start drafting your outrage posts for a new thread not too far down the road in which the EU announces some amendments to the law in support of the intended spirt of why the law was created in the first place... which is apparently NOT met by what is implied to be Apple's response here.
Like the Lightning lock vs. EU law, this is already over. I have to think Apple knows this too. I doubt this rumor is true... but if it is... I'm absolutely expecting EU amendments to follow soon to address this "moving of the deck chairs" response if true.
The spirit of this law is not "you can buy apps from anywhere else, but Apple is entitled to fully receive the same cut of revenue referenced in any other name." It is "you can buy apps from anywhere else, which may very well cut Apple's commission out of the transaction in full..." EXACTLY as it already is for ALL of us when we exercise options to buy apps for our Macs. If I buy some app through the Mac App Store, Apple gets their retailer cut. If I buy the same app from the Developers store, Developer is acting as their own retail store and keeps that cut for themselves.
Among other things, this EU law is attempting to foster the same consumer "choice" we all already have with Mac apps: buy from an Apple managed store or not. If not, Apple doesn't get a big cut anyway... facilitating the opportunity for developer to charge less but still make more... and their customers getting the same great app for a lower price. There is no guarantee that lower prices will come from this change... but much like history has GOVs always breaking the "sole seller" lock, robust competition pretty much always drives prices down.
Last edited:
Of course mobile generates more revenue. Basically everybody has a smartphone in their pocket so the userbase is enormous. Now compare that to how many people have a specific console.
It's about defending the concept of free market, not about defending the corporation.
iPhone sales are not going down when Apple pulls out, you can freely buy an iPhone in Russia or Iran. Europeans will simply buy grey imported or fly to Dubai/UK/whenever closest Apple Store is to get one.
Really well put. 100% agree.
I recently purchased a magazine at Costco. I paid Costco for the magazine. They got their profit margin, just like Apple does for any. Fair enough.
Except that I then subscribed to the magazine. In Apple's world, Costco should get 30% of that subscription for as long as I'm subscribed. Actually, in Apple's world, the magazine wouldn't even be allowed to have one of those subscription inserts. I would have to go back to Costco and tell them I want to subscribe to this magazine.
Their complaint was about practices that they do themselves. But they'll be allowed to continue to do them since they fall under the market cap set by the EU.
As long as they let the user ignore sideloading apps and just use the good'ol app store I am happy.
It will be a very cold day before I install a Meta App Store.
Nobody seems to be aware that paying for ANY type of subscription through the internet = 0% commission for Apple. You can still have the app in the App Store with customers paying for the subscription on the internet.
They would not be eligible to software support from that app, and they never provided software support for any third-party apps, not even the ones they bought (e. g. Shazam).
Getting a „virus“ from a side-loaded app will get the same treatment as from an App Store app, and they will just tell you to load from an old backup or set up as new.
Except sideloading is about selling the stuff far away from their store, and in their own store, or on the street.
It‘s actually more like buying the house and the landlord, who sold you the house on Cosco (haha), still blocking the entrance for your Amazon orders.
Good question.
App Store fees have nothing to do with the developer program, which is why the program has its own monetization. Certification is part of the (active) developer program subscription.
The walled garden is the antithesis of a free market.
But this is the core of the problem that people seem unable to comprehend. Of course you should be expected to pay a fee to Costco to sell your brand. But if I want to sell my widget online, on my own website, should I still have to pay Costco a fee? Or anyone for that matter? I designed it, I made it, and I marketed it and I want to sell it and keep the proceeds. If I used tools, I bought those tools. Should I have to, for eternity, pay the tool-maker a fee for everything I make with those tools?
That is utter bullcrap.
Apple dealer margins were nowhere close to 30%. If I sold the cheapest Mac mini and somebody put it on an AMEX card, we lost money. Any other credit card and it was barely break even. And that's selling at MSRP. We couldn't mark down because we'd lose money, we couldn't mark up because we'd lose customers.
The absolute best margin we had was on a Mac Pro, and that was about 10%.
The end came when Apple stores started charging for repairs at our part cost.
They will not get anything, iPhone user will not switch to Xiaomi. He will just buy iPhone elsewhere/get a grey imported.
Best Buy gets between 30-50% of everything they sell.
You claim to defend “free market”, yet rejoice that there isn’t a free market for iOS apps. Curious.
Do you pay Costco when you sell the kettle in the first place, or do you get a free ride claiming that people should be able to fill their own water?