Good point. We were talking in terms of mobile app stores, but it does get left out that there are plenty of alternatives to mobile app stores, including the open web. For dating apps specifically, the web is a perfectly viable alternative.
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.
Apple Must Let Dating Apps Offer Alternative Payment Methods in App Store, Dutch Regulator Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed, Tinder is not forced to use the App Store and pay Apple 30% commission with their payment system.
Tinder can simply pull their app from the App Store and let people use the web version in Safari. Then Tinder can do whatever they want.
Its all about anti Competitive behavior.
Apple is anti competitive for preventing other payment methods on its platform. This can be fixed by
- Side loading
- 3d party payment methods
Just because google might be responsible for the duopoly existing doesn’t excuse any actions apple do. They are judged independently
Nope, if web apps could do exactly the same thing as an app installed through the AppStore then you would have a point.
But right now you are forced to use the AppStore for technological and softWare limitation and not a fare market
And other platforms aren’t relevant to anti competitive behavior on specific platforms or markets.
a PC/Mac doesn’t compete with phones and websites
Does Apple have exclusive control over the supply of tinder? The answer to that question is no, as Tinder is on many other platforms.
And Tinder can even use Safari on iOS if they don’t want to use the App Store.
You are just falling for the expensive lawyers of Tinder who are trying to make a quick buck out of it.
And PC and MAC do compete against iOS as they are used for the same type of things, including the use of dating websites / apps.
Last edited:
Oh sure, let the dating company with a history of abusive payment schemes (and a virtual monopoly on online dating, only mainstream service they don’t control is Bumble) process fees instead of the company who’s subscription system I actually trust. I’ve vowed never to give a single cent to Match Group (and, in reality, you already could pay for a Match subscription separate from Apple and use it on the iOS app, though Match Group might not have had separate subscriptions outside of the App Store for every one of their services, in particular, I think Tinder was lacking in one). Actually, yes, this is another one of those situations of (especially dodgy) developers complaining about Apple’s take when they already had methods that they already used for avoiding the Apple subscription cut. They want their cake (include in-app purchases instead of directing to a website) and eat it, too, while I feel Apple’s in-app purchase rules are far more consumer friendly than anything you’d get from the likes of Match Group (it’s virtually impossible to close out of an account with them, and they’re the masters of the phantom subscription, plus they’ve been busted for the fake-profile-contacts-you-to-get-you-to-pay-for-a-site-subscription con game before).![]()
Apple must let dating apps like Tinder and Match offer payment methods other than Apple's in-app purchase system in the App Store in the Netherlands, or else it will face fines, the Dutch competition regulator announced today.
![Mac-App-Store-General-Feature.jpg]()
Specifically, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) said Apple will have to pay a penalty of five million euros per week, up to a maximum of 50 million euros, if it does not comply with the order within two months. The deadline comes a few months after the ACM ruled the App Store's in-app commission structure was unreasonable.
"Some app providers are dependent on Apple's App Store, and Apple takes advantage of that dependency," said ACM chairman Martijn Snoep. "Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position. That is why Apple needs to take seriously the interests of app providers too, and set reasonable conditions."
The ACM has been investigating Apple since 2019, and while the probe started out as a look into whether Apple's App Store practices were an abuse of dominant market position, it was later scaled back to focus on dating apps.
The ACM has shared a PDF summary of its decision with more details, and MacRumors has reached out to Apple for comment on the matter.
Article Link: Apple Must Let Dating Apps Offer Alternative Payment Methods in App Store, Dutch Regulator Says
You keep dropping back to an appeal to emotion instead of a legal argument. There is nothing inherently anti-competive about preventing sideloading or disallowing third party payments in certain situations. They are perfectly legal business strategies.
You're the one that keeps referring to them as a duopoly. If they are judged independently, then stop describing them as a duopoly. If you believe that being a duopoly is evidence of anti-competitive behavior, then the fact that Google is responsible for the duopoly and controls 65% of the market is certainly relevant.
So much wrong in everything you said here. No, a market is not limited to "exactly the same thing". No one is forced to use the App Store. And the fact that Apple's software creates value for the developers is an argument in favor of Apple getting a commission.
Apple have exclusive control over iOS. And iOS is 40% of the mobile phone market share in Netherlands. This is a dominant position
No, you simply don’t understand companies aren’t free to do whatever they want in EU and Pc and Mac isn’t a competing market as people generally have a phone and a computer they own, but almost never and iPhone and android phone at the same time
It has nothing to do with emotions. It might be perfectly legal in the USA, but not in Netherlands.
From the ruling of ACM
ACM comes to the conclusion that Apple abuses its dominant position by imposing unreasonable contractual conditions on dating-app providers. The conditions with regard to the IAP service and anti-steering, which only apply to providers that, within their apps, offer digital content or services, for a fee, result in harm to these dating-app providers.
In the courts eyes it only matters if you abuse your power. As ACM said:
Having a dominant position is not illegal in and of itself. Abusing one, however, is. Apple’s dominant position means that Apple bears a special responsibility for preventing such abuse. This special responsibility sets limits to its freedom of action with regard to the conditions it uses
It seems that you are in direct disagreement with ACMs ruling then. They said: it’s limited to the same thing.
Summary of decision: abuse of dominant position Apple | ACM.nl
The ACM has ordered Apple to adjust the unreasonable conditions in its App Store that apply to dating-app providers. The court has partially suspended the order subject to a penalty imposed by ACM on Apple. Apple does not have to comply with that part of the cease and desist order for the time being
Is Apple abusing its position in the "dating" market?
Is there some "iDate" product that Apple is launching soon? ?
I can see Spotify's argument that Apple promotes its own music service over competing music streaming services.
But this just sounds like the dating companies don't want to pay Apple's fees.
Is there some "iDate" product that Apple is launching soon? ?
I can see Spotify's argument that Apple promotes its own music service over competing music streaming services.
But this just sounds like the dating companies don't want to pay Apple's fees.
Because you're ignoring the distinction. By itself, it's not illegal. The ACM has ruled that Apple has a "dominant position". The rules change when you have market power. I have no idea of Apple's market power in the Netherlands.
But you and I weren't discussing the Netherlands. We were discussing the EU.
Again, you're shifting goalposts. We were talking about the EU. I do disagree with the ACM, but not for those reasons.
Not st all, just a simple miss understanding from my side as I thought it was about The Netherlands
If I take the preliminary Objection by the EU commission
From the investigation of the complaints of Spotify it’s have resulted in multiple investigations in different parts of apple’s business
Again. Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union deals with conduct by a firm with dominant market power. Like I said, there's nothing inherently anti-competitive about preventing sideloading or disallowing third party payments in certain situations.Not st all, just a simple miss understanding from my side as I thought it was about The Netherlands
If I take the preliminary Objection by the EU commission
From the investigation of the complaints of Spotify it’s have resulted in multiple investigations in different parts of apple’s business
I find it funny some of the American mindset. The Gov asking for 30% revenue share to build and mantain the infrastructure, roads, public electrical network they live on … quite a complex one … crooks … villains … way too much … we don’t need lights.
But when a company asks for the same revenue share just to install and distribute a bunch of files to peoples iPhones … “no one understands the business model”.
I wonder if the Gov used the same mindset as Apple how much they would charge for you to be able to walk on the pavement.
Crazy stuff.
PS: Not advocating that Apple should offering anything for free … just answering the qualifier … GIVING. Apple did not give anything that has not got back 10 fold from the market even without the App Store ... as it should be!
Last edited:
We reserve the right to reserve service. Take the app off the store in that region. They can use any other service they want.
Why should they take these apps off the store?
Isn’t Apple making good money from them, from in-app purchases and subscriptions?
I mean, it’s not as if these apps were violating Apple’s App Store rules, are they?
But yeah, please… let Apple take them off the Dutch/European app store tomorrow! This would only fan the flames and lend more credence to the argument that Apple behave as an anticompetitive bully. It will ultimately only serve to speed up and strengthen regulation of their business practices.
Frictionless payment is not a right. it is a commercial offering. Users can have the app take you to their website for payment, or Google Play Store or whatever else is out there. So many people trying to break the Apple model for the benefit of a tiny group of people. No thanks.
That’s just it, the EU is against personal security on mobile devices and are looking to break up Apple. So is the US. Neither care about ease of use or how well a device works.
Then why does EU have higher security standards for credit cards payment system? And stricter privacy laws? Why did Facebook threaten to leave the EU for not being allowed to use European citizen's data on US servers?
Why is EU wanting to implement a similar system to Apple's App Store privacy declaration?
No body want‘s terrorists to be able to keep their data hidden. As far as western democracies go, that can be literally applied to anyone/everyone.
Nobody wants the US government spying on them ether. Especially EU.
That’s why EU have strict data and privacy laws. Compared to USA with: private company can do whatever it wants.
You say that like the EU doesn’t want that same info for it’s citizens. Your strict data and privacy laws are easily circumvented when terrorism is being monitored at the state level.
It isn’t, member states can’t break EU privacy laws and citizens can take their state to the EU Human rights court . EU doesn’t have a legal authority or ability to monitor citizens private data.
Still your comment doesn’t address the need to keep the US governments nose away from where it doesn’t belong.