Apple Must Let Dating Apps Offer Alternative Payment Methods in App Store, Dutch Regulator Says

[turbineseaplane]

delete - wrong location for post - moved it

 

[mrochester]

When a business creates a product and a customer purchases a product provided by AT&T, that has happened because AT&T have created and maintained the AT&T Store and infrastructure. That is a service that AT&T provides and charges businesses for by means of a commission in store transactions within their store and relying on their infrastructure and IP. Without AT&T and similar providers that purchase would not have happened for apple or in their App Store

Thats for a judge to decide, or the government to make laws declaring it is

In iOS an app and web app uses the exact same IP to make a sale on iOS devices. And as far as I know, apple doesn’t own amazons IP making a sale possible on their storefront

Chrome, Firefox and opera that you can download on iOS App Store is.

They do all the time on every app in the store that wants to provide a digital goods outside the store inside the app

Well it is a third party app. It’s a website wrapped in an app that only lead you to their website

Then why ahou they use their own Or competitors IP to provide IAP? Or use apples wallet instead?

Exakt same argument can be made for any store. Because if no other store sold apple devices apple wouldn’t have customers. If ATT& or Verizon etc didn’t build up their literal infrastructure, allowed apple to sell their phones and use their network and IP.
They should absolutely be allowed to take a cut from any profit apple makes on their iPhones.

Or would you argue that not a good thing?

Malls require percentages of sales, and I can guarantee you 0% of malls require a commission on any reoccurring revenue apple or Samsung or AT&T etc makes outside the mall or revenue consumers regularly spend on said devices for iCloud or App Store games and data purchases etc even tho it’s because of them the customers even exist.

Well in the way apple does it might be.

It’s a legal question. Otherwise apple wouldn’t be in courts across the globe

If the agreement Apple has with ATT is one where Apple pays a commission for every transaction made on iphone then yes, Apple should pay that commission to ATT. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Do we think they will try to fight the commission fee next?

For sure.

The thing is: 3% for payment processing is quite a reasonable, competitive rate.

The remaining 27% commission on purchases (on which Apple isn't processing the payment) only further support the argument that Apple is charging supercompetitive rates.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The remaining 27% commission on purchases (on which Apple isn't processing the payment) only further support the argument that Apple is charging anticompetitive rates.

I swear there are forum members who would defend a 70-80% cut for Apple

The leader can do no wrong in the eyes of the subjugated

 

[mrochester]

For sure.

The thing is: 3% for payment processing is quite a reasonable, competitive rate.

The remaining 27% commission on purchases (on which Apple isn't processing the payment) only further support the argument that Apple is charging supercompetitive rates.

By that logic any rate above 0% is anticompetitive because it reduces the revenue of the app developer.

 

[I7guy]

I swear there are forum members who would defend a 70-80% cut for Apple

The leader can do no wrong in the eyes of the subjugated

Nothing like making a blanket statement of some undefined universe of people. Sounds like a straw-man.

 

[mrochester]

I swear there are forum members who would defend a 70-80% cut for Apple

The leader can do no wrong in the eyes of the subjugated

If developers are happy to agree to 70-80% rates I say good on Apple for having a product that achieves above market rates.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No it doesn't. The ios app store is Apple's property. Safari is copyrighted, I guess, but Apple is using open standards, open software etc. As I said above your making blind leaps about Amazon selling iphones.

Why do you always bring in the AppStore? When an app is purchased and transfers over to my iPhones internal storage, it’s no longer in the store. It left apples server.

When I make a purchase inside the app on my phone, apple is no longer in the picture, they didn’t deliver the subscription, they didn’t provide extra lives in a game. Apple is no longer the distributor.

If I download a web app game on my iPhone and this web application provides their own In app purchase mechanism. Apple doesn’t get a commission even tho it uses the same APIs and IP as an AppStore app

I don't understand what you are conveying. Chrome and Firefox are not selling products. They are mostly open source browsers and they are free.

What I’m saying is that you can use a third party browser that cost and buy things through it without apple getting a cut for Netflix or Spotify etc

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If the agreement Apple has with ATT is one where Apple pays a commission for every transaction made on iphone then yes, Apple should pay that commission to ATT. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

No, you’re missing the point. It’s different if they agree to it. And another to demand that everyone does it

 

[mrochester]

Why do you always bring in the AppStore? When an app is purchased and transfers over to my iPhones internal storage, it’s no longer in the store. It left apples server.

When I make a purchase inside the app on my phone, apple is no longer in the picture, they didn’t deliver the subscription, they didn’t provide extra lives in a game. Apple is no longer the distributor.

If I download a web app game on my iPhone and this web application provides their own In app purchase mechanism. Apple doesn’t get a commission even tho it uses the same APIs and IP as an AppStore app

What I’m saying is that you can use a third party browser that cost and buy things through it without apple getting a cut for Netflix or Spotify etc

Everyone totally understands that doing something via the app and doing something via the web both have nothing to do with Apple and both achieve essentially the same thing.

Your assumption that because both those approaches look and feel the same so Apple shouldn’t take a cut of either is where you run aground with actual reality. Apple does, and will continue to, take a cut from purchases originating from with iOS apps until a point where it is illegal for them to do so, at which point the revenue they generate from that will simply be collected somewhere else.

But any law that prohibits a business from collecting a commission where they have taken no action themselves will fundamentally alter how a lot of unrelated businesses work, so expect it to be hugely controversial and subject to significant legal challenges.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Everyone totally understands that doing something via the app and doing something via the web both have nothing to do with Apple and both achieve essentially the same thing.

Your assumption that because both those approaches look and feel the same so Apple shouldn’t take a cut of either is where you run aground with actual reality. Apple does, and will continue to, take a cut from purchases originating from with iOS apps until a point where it is illegal for them to do so, at which point the revenue they generate from that will simply be collected somewhere else.

But any law that prohibits a business from collecting a commission where they have taken no action themselves will fundamentally alter how a lot of unrelated businesses work, so expect it to be hugely controversial and subject to significant legal challenges.

We will se. And no law will prohibit it. But very likely it will be illegal to mandate it.

And this is a big problem these things are fundamentally not different and works exactly the same. The only difference is apples ability to force developers to use their system to take a cut. In the same way apple tried to take a cut of developers add revenue with iAd. And it died for being expensive and unable to compete.

The same should be true for IAP to compete fairly. It could very well be that 85/15 split with apples services is highly competitive and cost effective, but we won’t know until its optional

 

[mrochester]

We will se. And no law will prohibit it. But very likely it will be illegal to mandate it.

And this is a big problem these things are fundamentally not different and works exactly the same. The only difference is apples ability to force developers to use their system to take a cut. In the same way apple tried to take a cut of developers add revenue with iAd. And it died for being expensive and unable to compete.

The same should be true for IAP to compete fairly. It could very well be that 85/15 split with apples services is highly competitive and cost effective, but we won’t know until its optional

So do you think it will be made illegal or not? Your first three sentences contradict one another.

To get a good idea of where a commission would naturally settle you need look no further than Android where you can see the impact of sideloading and competing app stores on commission rates.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So do you think it will be made illegal or not? Your first three sentences contradict one another.

To get a good idea of where a commission would naturally settle you need look no further than Android where you can see the impact of sideloading and competing app stores on commission rates.

It will be made illegal to mandate it.
It will be legal to have it as an option.
It will be illegal to take a cut of competing payment system/ link outside the app.

 

[mrochester]

It will be made illegal to mandate it.
It will be legal to have it as an option.
It will be illegal to take a cut of competing payment system/ link outside the app.

This makes no sense. If it's illegal to mandate a commission, who is going to optionally pay for it if Apple can't make them? And why would it be illegal to take a commission where payment has been made by another means?

I think you need to think through this again. Laws can't be this randomly contradictory.

 

[I7guy]

It will be made illegal to mandate it.
It will be legal to have it as an option.
It will be illegal to take a cut of competing payment system/ link outside the app.

Apple will shut down the App Store in certain locations, imo. They threatened to exit the UK market. Do you believe Apple going to run a charity business?

(I guess anything is possible, but see the 27% article)

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This makes no sense. If it's illegal to mandate a commission, who is going to optionally pay for it if Apple can't make them?

If apple make them competitive and convince developers It's valuable to use them, then developers will use them. Simple as that. the market should not be responsible for apples being unable to compete.

And why would it be illegal to take a commission where payment has been made by another means?

a Digital store distributing software should not be allowed to demand a cut of out of store revenue that they aren't responsible for or contributed to. They should be free to provide their services for a fee and software suppliers should be free to chose their own solution

I think you need to think through this again. Laws can't be this randomly contradictory.

they aren't random. The law would treat software delivered on a CD or downloaded on a device the same and separated from the storefront. every app should be allowed to do what Googel stadia iOS app does and use their own payment solution.

Apple will shut down the App Store in certain locations, imo. They threatened to exit the UK market. Do you believe Apple going to run a charity business?

(I guess anything is possible, but see the 27% article)

Then apple should go ahead and shut it down its operation in UK considering the latest ruling. Apple can't infringe on patents without paying royalties. So apple seems to have three options either way.

1. Face a sales ban(effectively being forced to exit the market)
2. Agreeing to be bound by yet-to-be-determined patent licensing terms that the High Court is expected to set in 2022.
3. Exit the market as the threatened to-do and still pay the fine that will be decided.

And apple would not run a charity but a business without the ability to extort developers.
every App developer.

and im 100% certain that the 27% commision apple said will be blocked by the court as effectively making both the effect and spirit of the ruling meaningless. and likely bolster harder regulations

 

[I7guy]

[...]

Then apple should go ahead and shut it down its operation in UK. apple can't infringe on patents without paying royalties. So apple seems to have three options either way.

1. Face a sales ban(effectively being forced to exit the market)
2. Agreeing to be bound by yet-to-be-determined patent licensing terms that the High Court is expected to set in 2022.
3. Exit the market as the threatened to-do and still pay the fine that will be decided.

And apple would not run a charity but a business without the ability to extort developers.
every App developer

Maybe they should. Shrink the company and those who want Apple regulated but can't "live" without an appstore can go to android. Shrinking the company is no different than having revenue usurped by governmental regulations.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Maybe they should. Shrink the company and those who want Apple regulated but can't "live" without an appstore can go to android. Shrinking the company is no different than having revenue usurped by governmental regulations.

apple does not have a right to foreign markets or patients without paying the liens knowingly, doing exactly like epic.
no need to shrink the company, they just need to follow local regulations and consumer laws

 

[turbineseaplane]

Let's keep in mind also why the side loading conversation is so important here as well.

Remember, nobody actually needs an "App Store" if we can get Apple's iron grips legislated off iOS a small bit..
You could absolutely have direct distribution right from developers.

There was a wonderful time between boxed software and "App Stores" (middlemen taking cuts) of indie apps being directly distributed online that was totally glorious!

Many may not remember that (or may be too young to have enjoyed it, etc)

 

[mrochester]

If apple make them competitive and convince developers It's valuable to use them, then developers will use them. Simple as that. the market should not be responsible for apples being unable to compete.

a Digital store distributing software should not be allowed to demand a cut of out of store revenue that they aren't responsible for or contributed to. They should be free to provide their services for a fee and software suppliers should be free to chose their own solution

they aren't random. The law would treat software delivered on a CD or downloaded on a device the same and separated from the storefront. every app should be allowed to do what Googel stadia iOS app does and use their own payment solution.


Then apple should go ahead and shut it down its operation in UK considering the latest ruling. Apple can't infringe on patents without paying royalties. So apple seems to have three options either way.

1. Face a sales ban(effectively being forced to exit the market)
2. Agreeing to be bound by yet-to-be-determined patent licensing terms that the High Court is expected to set in 2022.
3. Exit the market as the threatened to-do and still pay the fine that will be decided.

And apple would not run a charity but a business without the ability to extort developers.
every App developer.

and im 100% certain that the 27% commision apple said will be blocked by the court as effectively making both the effect and spirit of the ruling meaningless. and likely bolster harder regulations

This makes no sense.

Right now all iOS apps use the iOS App Store. Therefore all iOS apps are liable to pay Apple commission on qualifying sales.

The only situation where Apple won’t be due a commission are the current scenarios (purchases that did not originate from an iOS app, or are exempt from paying commission) and if/when Apple legally have to allow sideloading. Those apps won’t require a commission paid to Apple.

 

[mrochester]

Let's keep in mind also why the side loading conversation is so important here as well.

Remember, nobody actually needs an "App Store" if we can get Apple's iron grips legislated off iOS a small bit..
You could absolutely have direct distribution right from developers.

There was a wonderful time between boxed software and "App Stores" (middlemen taking cuts) of indie apps being directly distributed online that was totally glorious!

Many may not remember that (or may be too young to have enjoyed it, etc)

Apple didn’t even want an App Store! It was developers who demanded it so that they had a quick and easy way to access customers.

And yes, no one needs an App Store, apps are non-essential when customers can be accessed via the open internet.

Of course that plays straight into the argument of not regulating this market.

 

[turbineseaplane]

And yes, no one needs an App Store, apps are non-essential when customers can be accessed via the open internet.

You're incorrectly conflating "Apps" and "App Store" and assuming the former requires the latter.
A misunderstanding I was expecting which is why I brought it up

An App Store is just a central location for software that could be getting directly installed

Apps definitely are needed and wanted
An App "Store" - not so much

(App Stores are not bad, but should not be required either)

The people that most want centralized App Stores are the middlemen running them.

 

[I7guy]

apple does not have a right to foreign markets or patients without paying the liens knowingly, doing exactly like epic.
no need to shrink the company, they just need to follow local regulations and consumer laws

Nobody said Apple should usurp local laws. Apple has a choice as to whether to be in a market, or not.

 

[mrochester]

You're incorrectly conflating "Apps" and "App Store" and assuming the former requires the latter.
A misunderstanding I was expecting which is why I brought it up

The App Store is just a central location for software that could be getting directly installed

Apps definitely are needed and wanted
An App "Store" - not so much

No, I don’t think app stores or apps are necessary.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This makes no sense.

Right now all iOS apps use the iOS App Store. Therefore all iOS apps are liable to pay Apple commission on qualifying sales.

Yes on the first sale to consumer. This we agree. But it makes total sense if you recognize that the apple AppStore is tangible separated from the iOS device consumers use.

The only situation where Apple won’t be due a commission are the current scenarios (purchases that did not originate from an iOS app third party solution, or are exempt from paying commission) and if/when Apple legally have to allow sideloading. Those apps won’t require a commission paid to Apple.

Not at all, this must also include IAP by third party solutions that developers chose to use instead of apples IAP solution. Now if consumers use apples IAP button then apple obviously get a cut of that specific sale.