return to table of content

Apple found in breach of EU competition rules

madeofpalk
218 replies
8h24m

You can feel however you want about Apple's rules and EU regulation, but I think it's pretty indispuitable how wrong it is that Apple prevents developers from explaining these rules to their users. Apple prevents developers from saying that Apple takes a % cut of the sale. Apple prevents developers from saying its available cheaper elsewhere. If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers?

Consistently these anti-steering rules are what gets Apple in trouble all around the world. It's the one part Apple lost in the US Epic case, and it's the EUs first point on their breach. Apple has done this to themselves by being so stubborn and refusing to budge an inch on how they run their platforms. The tiniest concession years ago could have avoided all this regulation on them.

ankit219
87 replies
7h58m

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? I read somewhere (I think Epic v Apple) where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases. I can understand the viewpoint that Apple customers might expect the same functionality if they purchase directly on site. But then, let the developer explain that too. "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" is a fair enough line that can be mandated just like they mandated everything else. Think they will have to do away with it eventually, though from the outside it looks like they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things.

rekoil
36 replies
6h49m

They could also provide developers some APIs to register external subscriptions and purchases, and thus make cancellation and refunds available through centralised user interfaces within iOS, but they don't, because their goal isn't actually to create great products for their customers, it's to create value for shareholders, and they can more easily do that by locking users into their model.

IMTDb
35 replies
6h19m

As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only one with my payment informations. I can safely install any app that I want, get subscription, in-apps etc without ever having to wonder where my payment informations are going.

You can't have that level of safety with API. Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood. If I unsubscribe from an Apple provided UI, I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action. Apple works really really hard to make sure that this trust we have in their system is warranted. As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else.

The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything.

That being said, Apple should allow users to perform all these operations outside of the iOS ecosystem if the developer allows it. I feel there is a clear communication here that "anything done outside of the Apple UI's is not the responsibility of Apple" (including payment / subscription management).

viraptor
15 replies
6h0m

I will hold Apple responsible for the execution of the action.

How do you think you'll do that? And then, how would it be different than with an app developer?

When this happens for example https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254901336 and you don't have another Apple device available.

I can dispute a card transaction, cancel a payment, maybe even send a nastygram to a developer. But if I dispute something with a middleman like Apple, Google, Steam, etc. I have to consider the possibility that they'll cancel my whole account if they think I'm abusing their system with any dispute.

ToucanLoucan
10 replies
4h42m

I mean, canceling a check costs money, and a charge-back (or perhaps more accurately rephrased, the request for a charge-back) on a credit card can be declined by the financial institution if they don't believe it's the correct action, and they'll usually ask you to work with the merchant first.

I'm not saying the middlemen you mention there are beyond reproach, merely pointing out the alternative systems that are implied here to be more/perfectly effective aren't exactly that either.

alt227
7 replies
4h23m

I think youve missed the parents point.

They are saying the middleman gatekeepers are dangerous becasue if you push them too hard they can take away your access to everything. Whereas if your agreements are with the individual companies and developers then the worst they can do is take away that one app.

ToucanLoucan
3 replies
3h54m

Oh, point taken certainly. But I have a feeling if a credit card issuer believes you are abusing their charge-back system, they might well nuke your account there too.

toast0
0 replies
2h47m

If a credit card issuer drops your account, you don't lose access to things you paid for with the card.

If a DRM store drops your account, you often do. (I think some of them do have a limited account type, so they will no longet let you transact, but you can still use the content you didn't chargeback)

immibis
0 replies
3h33m

If the charge back is approved, by definition it's not abuse, and the issuer makes money on successful chargebacks. They also make money on you having an account there. And they have the responsibility to give your money back if they close it. Plus you're ultimately, if indirectly, backed up by the full power of the civil justice system, courts and judges and all that. It may be very flawed but let's buy pretend it's as nearly as bad as the whim of one underpaid Apple intern with no real incentives or accountability.

alt227
0 replies
3h48m

The difference is there are many thousands of credit card companies to go and get another one from.

There are no other companies you can go to to get an app on your iphone.

naravara
2 replies
2h46m

On the other hand, those middlemen gatekeepers also make it a big part of their value addition to me, as a customer, to throw their weight around in my favor against all the other companies I can’t be arsed to argue with. For example, one of the reasons people pay for that AmEx Platinum card or Sapphire Reserve is specifically because you can call in the lender to do chargebacks, and the merchants themselves know that if they get too many complaints filed against them the financial institution will visit consequences on them.

I view Apple in much the same way. I don’t trust most developers, and part of what makes me willing to go out on a limb and throw a bit of money their way is the knowledge that I’m not gonna have to go through a whole path of dark pattern bullshit when I want to modify or cancel my subscription.

freeAgent
1 replies
2h34m

Google threatened to end my access to their payments system, which at the time would have caused my Google Fi phone plan to be unpayable, because they refuse to acknowledge a fraudulent charge through some Google Wallet apparently/maybe physical card at Forever 21's Indian affiliate for like $20 or $25. I have never, ever shopped at Forever 21 and didn't ever have a physical Google Wallet card. The charge was obviously fraudulent, but Google refused to help (and I also couldn't get anything particularly useful from Forever 21 other than to confirm that they hadn't integrated Google's payment method directly, so it must have been a physical card).

So I disputed the charge with my real bank, which corrected the problem by refunding me.

Google told me that if I ever did that again, they would lock me out of not just my account, but any future account using Google payment methods that was linked to me. That would make my phone service and the Google Play Store unusable. That was the beginning of the end of my relationship with Google services. So yeah...I do not trust Google or Apple as intermediaries for every payment in my life.

lordfrito
0 replies
2h12m

This is why I got rid of Google Fi... Google can't be trusted with mission critical systems (I consider my phone mission critical in my life)

immibis
0 replies
3h43m

And if a company keeps charging you unconsented fees on your credit card and you keep complaining to your bank, the CEO goes to jail.

Canceling a check is on you since if you didn't want to spend the money you shouldn't have written the check. CC Chargeback hits the merchant hard if approved, since they fucked up. And your chance of approval is similar as with Apple.

If it's an Apple-approved unconsented fee and you keep complaining to Apple, they remotely brick your phone and your computer along with deleting all your emails, your family photos, and your contact from everyone else's phone.

darreninthenet
0 replies
2h25m

The behaviour of a credit card company would vary enormously around the world though, for example in the UK credit card providers are jointly and severely liable for any action brought against the merchant (ie if they won't do anything you take both them and (eg) Apple to court) so they tend to be far more responsive to consumer complaints.

mrWiz
2 replies
3h14m

It's different because you only have to figure out how to deal with Apple rather than discovering a new process for every app you want to install. Far lighter mental load.

ImPostingOnHN
1 replies
44m

Apple doesn't legally deserve a privileged position there, because they are legally equal to any other payment processor that wants to be the "only one". Apple has no more right to be the "only one" than a competitor does.

Their spite fee for alternative payment processors being almost equal to their own payment processor fee, though, kinda shows their goal is just money anyways.

Having said that, I don't think figuring out how to use Apple Pay and Paypal is that hard. My friends use all kinds of payment processors.

mrWiz
0 replies
6m

My comment isn't addressing whether they deserve anything or whether this arrangement is beneficial overall - I'm only recognizing that it's easier to deal with a single supplier rather than a multitude of them.

mthoms
0 replies
1h52m

My wife received over a thousand dollars in mystery credit card charges from the App Store over a period of about 6 weeks. Apple couldn't explain it or provide any insight whatsoever. Nothing.

Apparently, the charges were on her credit card but associated with another Apple ID.

We did a charge back which was successful. Now, I'm just waiting for the inevitable locking of her Apple ID. Luckily, she has already created a new one, but if the same thing happened to me I'd be in serious trouble. In my case, simply creating a new Apple ID is not an option.

It's really scary.

troupo
7 replies
6h15m

Nothing prevents a dev from building an API that returns always "200 OK" when being called for a "terminate subscription" action, but that does nothing under the hood.

Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that.

As we know, trust is hard-earned, easily lost, and difficult to reestablish. So all it takes is a single bad experience to make me doubt everything else.

This is true.

The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything.

However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon.

naravara
2 replies
2h41m

However, that same system prevent me from buying Kindle books from the Kindle app on device, for example. Even though I can open the browser on that same device and buy them from Amazon.

I’m sure Apple would actually prefer that you buy the Kindle books on the app, even if they didn’t get a cut of the sale. It is actually Amazon choosing not to do it in order to dodge paying the payment processing fees.

troupo
0 replies
53m

Not a single payment processor in the world has a 30% fee while also having a competing product in which they can have the prices arbitrarily low (because they don't care about the 30% fee they pay to themselves).

The egregiously high processing fees from AmEx are at 3.30%.

ffgjgf1
0 replies
1h34m

paying the payment processing fees

Was that ever an option? I thought you always had to pay 30% when selling digital goods

cynix
1 replies
5h24m

Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that.

Laws mean nothing to scammy developers trying to make a quick buck. Would you hire a lawyer to sue for a $4.99 refund? And even if you’re willing to spend that money, are you sure you can figure out who to sue? The scammy developer is likely using some shell company registered in some dodgy jurisdiction. Sure, what they’re doing is illegal, but the average consumer has no real recourse.

immibis
0 replies
3h29m

My bank gave me a $10 refund, no questions asked, for a service that wouldn't answer cancellation requests. I don't think they even dinged the service, since they tried to bill me again the next month.

szundi
0 replies
5h40m

Laws? Lol. Like bigger part of the world cares.

mcphage
0 replies
4h53m

Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that.

Whose laws? The US's laws? Many app developers aren't in the US.

almostnormal
4 replies
6h9m

The current system allows Apple to control 100% of the process and to be fully responsible for everything.

Did Apple refund people who were scammed through apps, e.g. in bitcoin trading like [0] (first item google found)?

[0] https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-walle...

martimarkov
1 replies
4h5m

I like seatbelts but that doesn’t mean I’ll drive into a truck… I still use critical thinking when I buy stuff. But when I forget to cancel a subscription I can ask for a refund and 99% I get it back from Apple. Like 20-30% when I haven’t used the App Store and went directly to the merchant.

alt227
0 replies
3h57m

The worry is that after asking apple for a certain amount of refunds they flag you as a troublemaker and block you from using any of their services. This happens all the time.

Going directly to companies and merchants keeps this control in your own hands, nobody can block you from buying other software just because you had issues in the past.

detourdog
0 replies
1h41m

I just wonder why it matters to you.

dtech
2 replies
6h5m

most of your comment is irrelevant because you assume Apple would be calling a external API, while parent means is external calling Apple API to register subscriptions. Then if you have concerns like yours you can stay within Apple ecosystem.

jdmichal
0 replies
1h19m

That only works if the external API is handing off the entire subscription to Apple, up to and including payments. But the entire premise is to move away from being forced to use Apple for these elements, which makes it a non-sensical interpretation. In fact, that particular interpretation is the current status-quo -- apps use APIs to create subscriptions entirely managed by Apple.

If Apple does not control the actual subscription, but is only providing an interface for managing it, then Apple must then alert the actual owner of the subscription upon changes. There's then no guarantee that the code on the other side is properly handling that alert.

ffgjgf1
0 replies
1h37m

How would that be helpful if you want to cancel the subscription using a third party payment processor from the app store/settings(current workflow)? Apple would still have to call a third party API, otherwise it doesn’t seem particularly useful (i.e. you just get to see the status and that’s it?)

bogwog
1 replies
2h44m

As a user I really hate that I'm forced to give Apple my payment information when I want to do business with a third party on an iPhone, including the possibility that the 30% fee they take gets factored into the price I pay.

I think the EU's solution will make us both happy: you don't have to do business with companies that don't offer Apple pay, and I don't have to do business with companies that do.

massysett
0 replies
2h5m

This isn’t true. You can do business through Safari all you want and Apple takes nothing. Indeed I have bought Kindle ebooks on my iPhone that way.

Hikikomori
0 replies
1h14m

Feels like a solution to an American problem, cancelling things isn't much of a problem in EU.

londons_explore
21 replies
7h17m

they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things.

This. EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies who abuse users data rights, use monopolies to push EU companies out of the market, and use accounting tricks to barely pay any taxes.

Therefore, the EU has to be fining Apple and Google for something. If not this, then it'll be something else.

xandrius
10 replies
6h49m

Let's not make it some sort of agenda out the EU: these companies are out just for themselves and however much someone likes their tech/philosophy/ecosystem, their practices are bullshit and unfair.

_justinfunk
9 replies
6h26m

If Apple gets to have an nefarious agenda, then the EU may have one as well.

izacus
6 replies
5h30m

I know it might be not be an obvious difference for people living in US these days, but there's in fact a massive difference between a megacorporation and elected government.

_justinfunk
5 replies
5h18m

Who did you vote for in the EU? When were those elections?

malermeister
2 replies
5h13m

We vote for the parliament, which was only like a week ago. Each country also votes for their government, at times specified by their constitutions. Those governments then form the Commission and the Council.

BurningFrog
1 replies
4h31m

The EU parliament has a quite limited role. That's not the center of EU power.

malermeister
0 replies
4h24m

Sure. But every institution is elected one way or another.

izacus
0 replies
3h21m

Just last week was one of them.

andsoitis
0 replies
2h43m

Who did you vote for in the EU? When were those elections?

2024 European elections: https://elections.europa.eu/en/

Includes topics such as: results, how the elections work, and what comes next.

xandrius
0 replies
6h17m

One is a for-profit company known for anti-competitive and cut-throat techniques, as well as expert in tax dodging over the world.

The other is a governmental group formed by 27 rather different countries, all having a wide range of philosophies, cultures, corruption and mentalities.

I know which one I am more likely to get some level-headed decision which might help me.

hkt
0 replies
6h9m

The EU at the cutting edge of competition law, which is to say it is looking actively at the competitive landscape and saying "what are the problems?" then moving doctrine along to solve them. There's a lot to be said for the approach.

If the EU can be said to have an agenda, it is clear from the rules - their agenda is market fairness, and the ability of new entrants to successfully compete. The DMA is a key plank of that, but there will be others.

IsTom
4 replies
6h49m

EU's single biggest win is free and open Single Market and it will fight to keep it so. It doesn't matter where companies come from – if you look at e.g. GDPR enforcement tracker you'll see they're as eager to keep internal EU companies in line.

robertfall
3 replies
4h12m

Yea, but that's not so true for the DMA. They're only targeting foreign companies using it.

martimarkov
2 replies
4h1m

Any evidence for this? Which big domestic company is a gatekeeper and not being targeted by the EU?

burnerthrow008
1 replies
2h45m

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

See, the problem is that if I name one as an example, you will just fall back to silly games like "but the EU defined the term 'gatekeeper' in such a way that your example does not count". It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers, whether the market shares are similar, or anything like that. Your side will shut down any debate with logic such as that. So why bother engaging?

It's like arguing with a hardcore religious person about god. "Oh, but that's not what I meant by 'god'".

p_j_w
0 replies
2h12m

This just sounds like you don't have any examples.

It does not matter whether the market dynamics are the same as the defined gatekeepers

Perhaps then find an example where this is the case.

naravara
2 replies
2h39m

EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies

EU tech companies want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies. The Digital Markets Act’s standards for considering someone a “gatekeeper” seems like it was specifically tailored to exclude Spotify while binding Apple, Google, and Facebook.

Vespasian
0 replies
20m

There is plenty of competition in Spotify's market.Music is a commodity and the market is working Just fine.

Btw Netflix also isn't a gatekeeper and neither are Disney, salesforce or Oracle to name a few.

ImPostingOnHN
0 replies
13m

> The Digital Markets Act’s standards for considering someone a “gatekeeper” seems like it was specifically tailored to exclude Spotify while binding Apple, Google, and Facebook.

A glance at that list of 4 companies will quickly lead a person to the intuitive observation that 1 of those companies is not like the other. It's hard to see how one would classify Spotify as a "Gatekeeper" in the sense that the others are, so perhaps your observation is by design: Why would we expect the legal definition of ”Gatekeeper" to include Spotify, if Spotify is not a gatekeeper even on a common-sense level?

ffgjgf1
0 replies
1h18m

It’s one of the few benefits of EU being a complete backwater when it comes to software and consumer tech products.

There will be very little harm to EU’s economy since almost all of the profits are being sent to the US anyway.

Also this/GDPR/etc. is a form of protectionism (not that I see anything wrong with that to a limited extent) which will hopefully give at least some slight competitive advantage to EU tech companies (since they really do need it) and maybe a bit more crumbs to fight over.

SSLy
0 replies
3h54m

forget not the stick is also levied towards domestic to EU companies. starting with Booking.com

spiderfarmer
8 replies
7h16m

The only reason is that they don't want the public to realise how greedy they are. They know the value they add is not worth the price difference to a lot of customers.

As many have said for years. As long as Apple is not able to explain their value to the customer, they have to rely on shady business tactics to maintain the revenue stream they became addicted to.

carlosjobim
3 replies
1h47m

Do you know any other marketplace / reseller who puts a message: "By the way, if you book directly with the provider and cut us out, it will be cheaper"?

I can fully understand Apple's position. They created the system that customers love, developers will have to pay something to get access to those customers.

Apple doesn't have to explain to customers the value. Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting.

ffgjgf1
1 replies
1h27m

I can fully understand Apple's position

They want to maximize their revenue, just like any other company and there is absolutely nothing else to it.

Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting.

You don’t get to pick and choose which features do you want and most people don’t really care.

Anybody who is buying or using an iPhone today knows what they're getting.

That’s what allows Apple to abuse their position as a quasi-monopoly (as a platform for app developers adjusted by user spending they are effectively that in multiple markets).

carlosjobim
0 replies
46m

It's repeated again and again among hackers that Apple is a monopoly. While selling less devices than their biggest competitor. While having a much smaller install base for their OS than Android.

They want to maximize their revenue, just like any other company and there is absolutely nothing else to it.

Oh, I had no idea.

You don’t get to pick and choose which features do you want and most people don’t really care.

What? Iphones have been around for more than a decade, it's well known among customers how they work and there are plenty of options from other manufacturers.

Any store that can will take a cut from producers, whether that is a physical store like your local supermarket, or a digital store like Apple's.

The question is why Apple users are so much more willing to spend money on software than users of other platforms, and why hackers hate that so much? How much money can an independent or boutique developer earn from Linux or Windows users, compared to Apple users?

HDThoreaun
0 replies
1h12m

No, most people still do not know about how onerous the App Store rules are.

pjmlp
1 replies
6h39m

Having been so close to bankruptcy seemed to have tainted their behaviour, that now anything goes to protect what in the end saved them, moreso than in other companies.

ninth_ant
0 replies
4h50m

No, not “moreso than in other companies” — maximizing profits is something that effectively all companies do.

The difference is that smaller companies can get away with anticompetitive behaviour but there are regulations for market leaders.

What Apple was allowed to do when they were a disrupter is different from what they are allowed to do with a dominant postion in the ecosystem.

PS Saying all companies are greedy and would abuse a market position is not a moral defense of Apple’s behaviour, it’s a defense of antitrust regulations.

detourdog
1 replies
1h40m

Do you mean they don’t wan the public to know that they take 30% of sales?

ImPostingOnHN
0 replies
28m

Or perhaps that prices are 43% higher as a result of Apple taking their cut.

willseth
5 replies
2h20m

"You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store"

This seems like a reasonable compromise. Allow Apple to tell you what you won't get if you leave their store, but otherwise let consumers choose.

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out?

The reason is that every major retailer has anti-steering or most favored nation agreements with their suppliers, and Apple thinks they shouldn't be banned from it when everyone else does it. Applied to physical retail it does seem pretty absurd, e.g. The Cuisinart blender box at Target says it's 10% cheaper at Wal-Mart.

tomxor
1 replies
53m

Walmart isn't a gatekeeper because it doesn't make one of the most popular platforms on the planet.

If apple want to give up platform ownership and be a retailer, the EU wont have any complaints about them not allowing steering in their app store. Meanwhile Apple's app store would become one of many options rather than the default and only, so steering is moot.

Obviously that's not going to happen, hence they are going to have to hash it out until it's not longer anti competitive or be broken up forcefully.

willseth
0 replies
9m

My point was that the idea of anti-steering in retail is old and the idea of "gatekeepers" is new. Apple isn't unique. They are behaving exactly how you would expect if a regulator suddenly tries to stop them from doing something that was previously routine.

troupo
0 replies
50m

AppStore is not Target. At best it's a mall.

thayne
0 replies
11m

The reason is that every major retailer has anti-steering or most favored nation agreements with their suppliers

Well, I don't think that should be allowed either. Especially when the retailer has enough market power that they can bully the supplier into accepting unfavorable terms, like say Amazon or Wal-Mart.

If a retailer takes a bigger cut, it shouldn't forbid you from selling it cheaper elsewhere.

araes
0 replies
58m

It's close to that, and if Apple was forced to advertise the cheaper price, or the product seller themselves was then it would be.

This is more like Target prohibits sellers from ever notifying you that there's a sales price at Walmart if you're looking for a deal. You're not allowed to push deals for you're own product during Black Friday or similar.

Frankly. I donno where the quote about the "do not tell about sales is at." I tried to read the legalese and got stuck on:

7.3 "You may also distribute Your Applications ... within Your company, ... on a limited number of Registered Devices (as specified in the Program web portal)" Wait. What? My own company has limited internal distribution on my own app?

7.6 "Except for the distribution of ... Licensed Applications through the App Store or Custom App Distribution, the distribution of Applications (using Section 7.3, 7.4, 7.5) ... and/or as otherwise permitted herein, no other distribution of programs or applications developed using the Apple Software is authorized or permitted hereunder. You agree not to distribute Your Application ... via other distribution methods or to enable or permit others to do so." IE, you cannot go out on the street and "share" this app with someone, or give it to them, or similar. And obviously not 3rd party portals.

9.2-9.3: "You agree to protect Apple Confidential Information using at least the same degree of care that You use to protect Your own confidential information of similar importance, but no less than a reasonable degree of care." ... "Apple will be free to use and disclose any Licensee Disclosures on an unrestricted basis without notifying or compensating You." Note: Licensee Disclosures include All Data. You agree to put Apple's data in a vault, Apple agrees to copy your app.

beeboobaa3
3 replies
6h35m

where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases

Well, yeah. When it's your only goddamn choice it sure as shit becomes that. I can guarantee you it can be done for much, much less than 30%. But apple won't allow it.

martimarkov
2 replies
3h57m

But that’s how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free. I still don’t understand the logic behind the complaint. If the developers don’t want to pay, why not just drop support for iOS? If the answer is because customers are on iOS then… idk respect that this is the decision of the user. Don’t force me to install another App Store or give you my card data so you can charge me the same amount and keep more profit while compromising my privacy and security

stale2002
0 replies
29m

idk respect that this is the decision of the user.

You have it completely opposite.

The argument is that the user should be given full power and permission over their own device that they own, and should be allowed to choose, on their iPhone, to install whatever they want.

If a user doesn't want to install an app, thats fine. But give them the choice to do so.

Don’t force me to install another App Store

Then don't install another app store! Just don't do it!

happymellon
0 replies
3h34m

that's how they decided to fund other areas like having iOS free

Isn't that funded by iDevice and Mac sales? Because Mac sales sure as hell aren't going to MacOS development...

vundercind
2 replies
3h40m

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out?

As a user, it’d just be irritating noise to have this start showing up in apps, unless buried in some little out of the way link somewhere like other unimportant things like the supposedly legally binding t&c all these apps pretend we’re reading.

Messages like this (“go subscribe somewhere else to get a lower price”) also confuse the hell out of e.g. my dad and prime them to fall for scam messages.

Rohansi
1 replies
3h17m

Could just show "Apple transaction fees" as a separate line item instead of just the total. Everyone should be more accustomed to that than a possibly sketchy looking message.

vundercind
0 replies
1h14m

Yeah making it itemized on the payment screen would be fine. As long as the stated amount and the final total weren’t different, like sales taxes in US stores. No “$10… just kidding now it’s $13”. But listing it on the “bill”, yeah, wouldn’t mind a bit if they were forced to do that.

naravara
2 replies
2h52m

"You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store"

For one thing, nobody reads that stuff and secondary, after a few months people forget the details of where and how they subscribed to things.

So it absolutely would lead to an increase in support calls to Apple as people ask why they can’t manage a subscription through the App Store. Even me, who generally does keep track of this sort of thing, completely forgot through what service I first activated an HBO subscription and it was kind of a hassle to cancel it since, it turned out, I had set it up through Roku and I haven’t owned anything Roku in 6 years so didn’t think to look.

A blanket ban is overdoing it though, and is just a lazy (and conveniently profit maximizing) way to stop it. I’ve long felt that what Apple ought to do is maintain a codified standard of bad behaviors that address the specific dark patterns they are worried about and just hold that over developers’ heads to retroactively punish abuse rather than having a default posture of being adversarial.

irdc
1 replies
2h48m

what Apple ought to do is maintain a codified standard of bad behaviors that address the specific dark patterns they are worried about and just hold that over developers’ heads

The problem with doing that is that it likely results in a game of Whack-A-Mole with malicious parties. See for instance Google regarding SEO.

naravara
0 replies
2h36m

They’re already playing that game through App Review anyway though. This just gives them more granular sets of punishments they can dole out beyond just “accepted” or “rejected.” It also discourages seedy developers from just opening up chains of fly-by-night developer accounts to upload scams, since they could gate a lot of these elevated API privileges behind needing to have a good reputation.

pjc50
0 replies
6h39m

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out?

They haven't (and obviously won't), but the intent is clearly to eliminate any criticism of Apple from within apps, while also making sure that there aren't any "leaks" in the system from which money could escape that they want their fingers on.

(except for privileged companies like Netflix and Amazon)

amelius
0 replies
4h16m

But then, let the developer explain that too.

This is a bit like banning free speech because sometimes not the whole story is told.

HumblyTossed
0 replies
3h57m

Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out?

Surely because they think, "We're Apple, this is how we do things." But honestly, there's starting to burn through a lot of the consumer good will credit they have built up. They're just another "shareholders first" company now.

stoperaticless
67 replies
8h10m

Fair or not, but it is very good business model. Smart people realised, that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases.

Solution: create your own alternative to open market - be the market (and write rules for it)

Apple will do a lot to keep this cash cow at peak performance.

Rinzler89
30 replies
8h3m

And who will win? Those "smart people"(I hate this word, being nefarious is not smart, and stop gaslighting us by humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation doing illegal things, as "people") creating their own market monopoly, or the regulatory bodies of large governments that can regulate those monopolies in their regions?

History tells us that the institutions with laws, guns, judges and a monopoly on violence rules over "smart people" who just make phones.

Apple's only retaliation is making life shit for EU users or pulling out of the EU market which they won't because that would leave a China style vacuum that Google or a local EU competitor will take after a period of painfull transition for the EU consumers.

The EU consumers can live without iPhones. Can Apple's shareholders live without Eu's profits?

robertlagrant
17 replies
7h47m

I hate this word, let's stop being gaslighted humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation as "people"

It's not gaslighting. People work for the company, and they decided. You're dehumanising them by saying they aren't human.

Rinzler89
14 replies
7h45m

I never said people aren't human, I said apple aren't human they're a corporation.

And people who knowingly leverage their gigantic corporation to make life worse for others in the name of shareholder profit can and should be dehumanized. There nothing humane in hurting others for greed.

thegiogi
6 replies
7h33m

Agree entirely on principle, but nobody should be dehumanized, if nothing else because it is a very ineffective way to model your opponent.

And hurting other for greed is surely not humane, but it is very much human. Big difference that e at the end.

lxgr
4 replies
6h18m

Modeling a group of people, answerable to yet another, even larger group of people, as “a person” is what I would call even worse modeling.

robertlagrant
3 replies
5h53m

It's not that a company is a person. It's that it's multiple people, some of whom make decisions.

lxgr
2 replies
4h49m

Exactly, and groups of people behave differently from a single person in many important ways.

robertlagrant
1 replies
4h32m

Yes - they have more legs. But what they are not is a homogenised mass, all as equally guilty or innocent of issues as the other. If 3 executives do something bad, those 3 executives are to blame. And not some nothing-to-do-with-people corporation.

lxgr
0 replies
4h13m

I agree! That's why I didn't say "are culpable differently" but "behave differently".

DiggyJohnson
0 replies
4h18m

One of HN's biggest intellectual blind spots is mistaking explanation with justification. Looks like your comment was caught up in that.

nickserv
6 replies
7h33m

I get what you're saying, but Apple are a group of people, so they are human.

Like the local book club, or Hamas.

Anyway, you don't have to look very far to see the many horrible things done to humans by other humans.

The word "humane", in my view, defines how we would like to be, not how we really are.

chgs
3 replies
7h21m

Apple is more than the sum of its parts.

Technically a person is just a bunch of cells, but those cells are interchangable, replaceable (indeed few last more than a couple of decades), and if you lose an individual cell nothing happens to the person, but the cell can’t function.

we don’t say the cells make decisions, we say people do. With a corporation it’s the corporation that makes the decisions, not the individual cells.

nickserv
1 replies
5h31m

Agreed, there's definitely the emergence principle at work when looking at how groups of people function.

The population of a city or a nation is similarly greater than the sum of its parts, and there is an emergent property in both cases. Same as an ant colony.

2 things though.

The constituant parts of a corporation are human, unlike an ant colony. So in that sense they are human, and ant colonies are ant.

Regarding ourselves, we absolutely are an assembly of cells, it wouldn't be wrong to define us as such, although not terribly convenient. But interchangeable the cells are not, well not like a person to a corporation.

A cell can't move from one person to another, if it somehow disagreed with a decision of the central nervous system.

The human brain is made up of billions of cells, and decisions of the brain are heavily dictated by the digestive system and various hormones. A corporate board is at the most, what, maybe a few dozen people? There isn't the same level of responsibility of each component.

Finally, if the entire corporation decides as one entity, how to punish for wrongdoing?

Should every component of the corporation be put in jail if the corporation kills people (looking at you Boeing), or just the humans at the top that made those decisions?

Another way of looking at it: Is the entirety of the Palestinian population responsible for the decisions of the dozens of humans that are the Hamas leadership?

BriggyDwiggs42
0 replies
2h18m

The decision makers still have agency, but structures exist to prevent those who would make un-profitable decisions from reaching the top of the corporation in the first place. Once they’re there, their choices are constrained somewhat and (with nuances) profitable decisions are incentivized over others. The consequence is that, while individuals possess agency, we can also observe that the average individual’s behavior is predictable and in service of the corporate machine in aggregate. You can punish the ghoulish person who decided, along with a few others, to dump toxic waste into the river, while still recognizing that their actions were an inevitable result of the incentives we created for them. The most productive thing, of course, would be to change the incentives, but baby steps.

robertlagrant
0 replies
5h54m

Your way of thinking advocates for no accountability by employees. The company did it?

LocalH
0 replies
6h15m

Ship of Theseus. If you replace every single human at Apple with someone different, it's still Apple. Apple is, at this point, a separate entity, under control by a given group of humans at a given time, but that can change.

The problem is considering "Apple" itself a person, as corporate personhood does. Thinking of companies, even in limited contexts, as a "person" allows the individuals actually making decisions to be largely immune from liability on a personal level. Maybe that should change.

BriggyDwiggs42
0 replies
2h26m

Looking at a corporation as a single entity from the outside it seems more like some sociopathic, mildly superhuman ai than a group of people. Of course it’s composed of people, but is that really the most useful frame to view it through? It’s nothing like a book club.

lxgr
1 replies
6h21m

People work for the company, and they decided.

I think you have an incorrect model of the incentive structure and actual power dynamics of publicly owned corporations.

Even the CEO has to answer to shareholders in the end.

Rinzler89
0 replies
45m

The CEO has to answer to shareholders when it comes to keeping his job and to legislators when it comes to abiding the regulations in every market. It's a tough act to follow if you try to maximize shareholder returns while also trying to stay out of prison.

stoperaticless
4 replies
7h40m

I don’t see the future, but argument for Apple could go like this:

- it is Apple vs EU

- US gov has guns and influence and various levers

- US gov will definitely protect Apple from guns of EU (so regulator with guns is a bit mute point)

- Apple is important to americans (I think they feel it’s their symbol or something), so officials in US gov might think it’s good opportunity to grab some political points.

- US gov might act to help out Apple in this dispute (Nothing like a war, but some slight nod or handshake; maybe via diplomatic backwater; maybe in exchange for something)

Though most probably apple will give “something” even if minor change in the rules, at least just so EU would not loose face, to keep relationship friendly. (But it will be move in the right direction)

Rinzler89
1 replies
7h33m

Did the US attack China over all the regulations Apple and Google have to fall in line with to be compliant over there?

adolph
0 replies
3h55m

The US might have less of a leg to stand on vis-a-vis Bytedance absent China's examples of how to do it.

Sakos
0 replies
7h16m

There is a deep misunderstanding here of US politics and foreign policy.

The US might act in various ways to protect American manufacturers, or oil industry, or other industries that are responsible for a lot of jobs in the US or are a strategic resource in some other way. See the 100% tax import for Chinese EVs. The US government doesn't care about Apple. Apple's economic impact is basically irrelevant for the US, because it doesn't provide a noteworthy number of jobs or any significant supply chain within the US. Apple's use as a strategic resource is completely irrelevant based on their antagonistic behavior towards the US government and they've shown themselves to be as eager to comply with Chinese laws as they are to flout US government policies.

I'd maybe see the US do something to protect Microsoft, with its deep ties to the military industrial complex, or Intel, which has both these ties and is clearly a strategic resource because of the advanced chips it provides, but really only if there were an existential threat that would also prevent Microsoft or Intel from performing their necessary roles in the US economy, the military and in US foreign policy.

But to suggest that US guns are in any way relevant, or that the US would bother trying to protect Apple, is frankly absurd.

The EU has smacked down Meta, Google and Microsoft already for things they felt were anti-competitive. The US didn't give a shit. Why would it be any different here?

The_Colonel
3 replies
3h57m

Europe represents ~25% of Apple's revenue (https://www.statista.com/statistics/382175/quarterly-revenue...)

That's quite a large loss. Esp. given that there's another option - stay on the EU market while conforming to its rules. That will lower the profits, but not by that much.

Losing Europe as a market would have larger consequences, though. Software produced in EU would have worse support on Apple, people even in US having connections with Europeans would start installing alternative messengers etc. Apple's strength is in its network effect, cutting out a major part of it would be disastrous.

musictubes
1 replies
2h57m

The EU is a subset of “Europe in that report. Pretty sure Gruber also mentioned that the Middle East is also lumped in there as well for some reason.

So yeah, the EU is bound to be a big number but it isn’t 25%. The biggest economies in the EU are Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium? Big countries outside of it but included in Apple’s “Europe” catagory include the nordics, UK, Switzerland, Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and probably something else.

Even if the EU makes up half of what Apple calls “Europe.” A fine of 10% of worldwide revenues is way beyond what the EU contributes to the bottom line. There’s no way Apple wants to take the nuclear option but if the EU threatens them with big enough fines they might think about it.

Liquid_Fire
0 replies
2h36m

the nordics

This one is a big stretch. Sweden, Denmark and Finland are part of the EU, while Norway and Iceland are part of the EEA where the DMA also applies.

jandrewrogers
0 replies
1h48m

Americans already install alternative messengers on Apple and always have. That's not a real risk. I work in Europe and the people I know commonly switch between WhatsApp, iMessage, and Signal. I still use the Apple messenger by default because it is a noticeably superior product to the other two.

Similarly, my experience is that software produced in the EU commonly has worse support on Apple, including at companies I worked for. Again, that's already the reality. This fact was sometimes raised as a reason the apps had difficulty getting traction in iPhone heavy markets like the US.

There are reasons for Apple to stay in Europe but these aren't the reasons. I've commonly observed that the iPhone is more of a status symbol in Europe than in the US (where it is usually just the phone most people buy by default), which creates different market dynamics. In the US good interoperability with other iPhones is more important because that is a primary reason people buy them.

justinclift
2 replies
7h15m

History tells us that the institutions with laws, guns, judges and a monopoly on violence rules over "smart people" who just make phones.

The real problem is that some of these mega-corporations can drag things out so long legally that the end result barely matters. :(

xandrius
1 replies
6h46m

Governments have a shot at this fortunately. But it seems that some US people have such an ingrained anti-government that they reject anything, even if it helps.

SXX
0 replies
5h41m

This is forum with a lot of top1% earners who can afford to pay Apple premium. And entrepreneurs who only dream to build the next apple and be able to abuse market power the same way.

Government regulation are kind a opposite side of that coin.

nickserv
20 replies
7h42m

Yes it's called a monopoly and this is precisely what the EU is trying to avoid.

xxs
15 replies
7h38m

actually the rules apply to everyone monopoly or otherwise, anti-competitive rules are not applied/enforced when there is a dominant market position only.

nickserv
13 replies
7h27m

Exactly, the rules are meant to prevent monopolies from forming in the first place.

Jensson
12 replies
7h12m

In some cases a monopoly is needed or wanted, like in credit card cases you don't want a million credit card types that all work in different subsections. In such cases regulations are to prevent such companies from having too much influence and bottlenecking everything else with high prices or forcing their own other products. EU already did this with credit cards.

DarkNova6
3 replies
7h4m

Or you force and open standard and now you have different companies using the same system but with competing pricing.

If something "has to be a monopoly", there is a good case to be made that you are talking about a core public infrastructure piece which shouldn't be under control of a singular private entity.

Jensson
2 replies
6h54m

Credit cards need to have personal connections with businesses since it is about mutual trust. A business doesn't want to deal with a shady credit card and credit card providers doesn't want to deal with shady businesses.

So you are talking about a technical solution to a social issue, that wont solve it.

tremon
0 replies
5h40m

Mutual trust doesn't scale. You really think that either Visa or Mastercard has a personal connection to every grocery store that accepts credit card payments?

DarkNova6
0 replies
4h38m

Online pay providers show that it is very well possible. There are tons of payment providers which are widely supported. The only difference is that some of them have a physical presence while others do not.

With a common standard, the available of card-based payment providers would indeed increase. In europe, you often can't pay with Diner's Club or American Express. If they would not all have proprietary systems and were compatible, then their adoption would in-fact increase.

Naturally, not every grandmother and their dog should be able to use this standard but there must be a well-respected authority behind it. Taken to the extreme and we couldn't trust anybody we couldn't have root certificates.

lxgr
2 replies
6h25m

That’s arguably not a great example, since there are both more than one international credit/debit card networks, and even these have been subject to constant regulatory scrutiny.

There was a time when common wisdom was that telephone companies and many other infrastructure businesses needed to “obviously” be monopolies as well (sometimes state-owned, sometimes private, which is arguably the worst of both worlds). I really wouldn’t want to go back to that.

Jensson
1 replies
6h6m

That’s arguably not a great example, since there are both more than one international credit/debit card networks, and even these have been subject to constant regulatory scrutiny.

The two cards are essentially interchangeable so it is a duopoly. And the fact that they are subject to constant regulatory scrutiny without adding laws to force new entrants is why it is such a good example, it shows how well regulations can work without adding competition. To me in Europe credit cards works really great with low fees and no fuzz, I don't think that anything needs to be done about that more than is already done.

lxgr
0 replies
4h44m

To card issuing banks, absolutely not. Visa and Mastercard compete for their business.

To merchants, yes, since they can't reasonably only accept one but not the other, as that would turn away a large fraction of their customer base. This is why most regulatory action happens here.

subject to constant regulatory scrutiny without adding laws to force new entrants

There are absolutely measures taken to encourage new market entrants or at least more competition among the existing ones. (Whether they are effective is a different question.)

As one example, in the US, every debit card issuer is obliged to add at least one other brand/network to their cards, so that merchants do in fact have some routing choice. In Europe, some countries also have a domestic competing debit scheme, such as CB in France, Girocard in Germany etc.

I don't think that anything needs to be done about that more than is already done.

I think you underestimate how unstable the current equilibrium is. The interchange cap regulation is relatively new, and I doubt that the networks will fail to come up with other ways to grow their market share and/or revenue that will, at some point, require further regulatory scrutiny.

nickserv
1 replies
6h21m

Not sure I understand, what has the EU done to encourage a credit card monopoly? That there's basically a world wide Visa/MC duopoly isn't something the EU has actively encouraged as far as I know, only regulated as you mentioned.

For banking transfers there's SEPA so assuming a similar system could be set up for credit cards.

Jensson
0 replies
6h11m

what has the EU done to encourage a credit card monopoly

I didn't say they encouraged it, just that they didn't end it but instead added laws to cap the fees.

samrus
0 replies
3h43m

What your describing is accomplished by standards, not monopolies. Monopolies can create standards but that's a horrible trade-off for society.

HTML is a standard, not a monopoly

nox101
0 replies
3h8m

If you're from the USA maybe you're used to effectively a single payment system (or a small number that all use the same card reader)

Many countries have far more payment systems. For example, Japan, 7/11 takes Line Pay, PayPay, Merupay, au Pay, R Pay, d払い, Smart Code, J-Coin, Bank Pay, QOU-Pay, WeChat Pay, Alipay, Nanco, R Edy, iD, QUICPay, 9 different train cards, Mastercard, Visa, American Express, JBC.

Some of them you insert the card, some use NFC, some you scan a QR Code, some you show a QR code.

Some have had big discounts or "points", probably to try to get market share. The discounts can go either way. Some are for the consumer (get 5% cash back for example). Others are for the merchant (zero fees for N months, etc...)

There's tons of competition.

blackoil
0 replies
5h8m

In that case it should be owned/regulated by the govts. In India's UPI has multiple banks talk to multiple consumer and vendor apps in one ecosystem standardized by govt agency. and it is damn good compared to other systems.

hdhshdhshdjd
0 replies
3m

The DMA very much does not apply to everybody and was revised and tailored to exclude EU companies, by making sure the definition of “platform” includes the Big Tech firms + TikTok while excluding Spotify and Booking.

The job of the EU is protect and benefit the EU, not American companies. The DMA is not a “general” regulation like the GDPR that applies to all, this is a tailored approach to help EU companies.

amelius
3 replies
5h30m

It's more than monopoly. It's monopoly combined with strong lock-in.

Workaccount2
2 replies
4h38m

Maybe not as much in the EU, but in the US it's completely insane:

"Stay in our ecosystem or else your friends/family will stop including you in group chats, stop sharing pictures with you, stop sharing video moments with you"

Apple leverages your personal social connections against you in the US...and by and large people don't seem to know or really care.

amelius
1 replies
4h35m

This was similar when the Bell Telephone company was running things, but at some point the regulator said no and other telephone operators were allowed on the same network.

The_Colonel
0 replies
4h6m

That's actually a great comparison.

haileys
6 replies
8h2m

Smart people realised that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases.

This has been observed and written about since at least the 18th century

aikinai
4 replies
7h55m

Parent didn’t say when smart people figured it out.

This is also why Nintendo (when they moved into video games) set up their business model as platform-holder, not just game developer. And their own games are primarily there to seed the platform.

yobbo
3 replies
6h48m

Rather, the goal was to lower ("subsidise") the purchase price (initial barrier) of the NES/SNES and then recoup it on licenses for cartridges. It makes each purchase of a console cheaper. It's the rational way to maximize revenue.

But Apple is not subsidising phones in any way.

aikinai
2 replies
6h21m

I'm not sure how you're framing that as a subsidy. It's a killer app that gets people over the threshold to purchase the platform (console). And then once the install base is established, everyone else wants to make their own games and has to pay you (a lot) for the privilege.

Developing first-party games costs more money, to both Nintendo and consumers, so it's the opposite of a subsidy. But they're compelling enough, they clear the purchase threshold and establish the platform on which the rest of the business is built.

kaba0
1 replies
5h4m

Parent commenter meant subsidizing the actual hardware costs. The same is true of pretty much every other console, they can also sell the hardware cheaper for this reason

rcxdude
0 replies
4h9m

Nintendo is a funny example here though, since they are notably the one major player which actually makes a profit on their hardware sales directly. They do also make a cut on the other games still, though.

amelius
0 replies
5h29m

So, is that good or bad in your opinion?

malermeister
2 replies
6h59m

The core raison d'etre for the EU is open markets. They'll do a lot to keep their fundamental core principle.

izolate
1 replies
4h8m

The billions in agricultural subsidies, strict regulations, and non-tariff barriers that make it difficult for non-EU companies to compete suggest otherwise to me.

malermeister
0 replies
4h5m

Open markets != unregulated markets.

beeboobaa3
1 replies
6h31m

Whipping homeless people until they do the work you demand of them is also a very good business model. Just not exactly ethical or legal.

lotsofpulp
0 replies
5h29m

Why the homeless qualifier?

samrus
0 replies
3h45m

Smart people realized that you can operate in antisocial manner and benefit at the cost of others by creating a monopoly?

Do you also think drug peddlers are smart for entering an under supplied market?

madeofpalk
0 replies
7h49m

Apple will do a lot to keep this cash cow at peak performance.

The problem is if Apple's obstinance leads them to loosing much more of their cash cow than if they had just given up a little.

indoordin0saur
0 replies
26m

in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases

As they should. Innovators should be able to collect a profit for their hardwork. A decade later when your company gets captured by MBA grads it's not a great thing for the consumer or the economy as a whole if they just sit there and collect rent while lobbying for regulatory capture to keep any new talent from being able to do better than them.

toasterlovin
16 replies
5h58m

Anti-steering rules are completely normal in contracts between cooperating commercial entities. We sell on Amazon and we’re not allowed to steer Amazon’s customers off of Amazon. Amazon disables hyperlinks in the messaging system for communicating with customers. They rejected our PDF spec sheets for having links to our website. They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site.

And, honestly, they’re completely justified, IMO. They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase. Why should they then have to allow us to steer that customer off of their site to complete the sale? Of course, we’re still allowed to sell outside of Amazon, but we have to do all the legwork to get customers. And, being in the midst of an effort to do just that, it’s a huge amount of work, so I think they’re justified in not wanting us to poach their customers.

poincaredisk
5 replies
5h51m

I understand why Amazon won't allow you to link to your store directly but

They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site.

This sounds pretty shady

_aavaa_
2 replies
4h5m

Not only are they shady, but these most favoured nation deals are incredibly anti competitive. Amazon is using its market position to dictate what price other stores are allowed to sell at.

toasterlovin
0 replies
9m

They're just not. The thing they're trying to avoid is a customer discovering a product on Amazon, then immediately finding it for less on the manufacturer's website. And this happens. We do it! So do plenty of other sellers we're aware of. Of course, we have to hide it behind a login or offer a 10% discount on first order or whatever.

Amazon is giving sellers something of immense value (the opportunity to sell physical goods to a huge pool of customers who are ready to buy). Why should Amazon give that access to sellers who are trying to divert customers off of Amazon? They're not running a charity. It's their business, which they've built over decades of immense investment and effort. And the immense value of what they've built is evident in the difficulty other massive retailers like Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc. are having building similar online retail businesses.

petre
0 replies
1h2m

Not only they do that but they also give out deals and rebates without asking the merchant.

I would automatically give the clients a rebate equal to the Amazon fees if they purchased through my site.

toasterlovin
1 replies
5h36m

We don’t have a right to sell on their site. If we want access to their customers and exposure for our products, they want to make sure they’re not being undercut on pricing (since they know customers will price shop).

Mordisquitos
0 replies
2h8m

If even after stopping you from linking to your own site Amazon still fears their customers will price shop by their own accord then:

a) Amazon is implicitly admitting that their shopping platform is not so special: if customers could find cheaper suppliers of your product that would be enough for Amazon to be outcompeted.

b) Amazon is indisputably engaging in anticompetitive practices by forbidding you from even selling at a cheaper price with the only justification of "we do not want price competition to even exist"

pjc50
3 replies
3h11m

I remember hearing stories of customers flicking through physical books in bookstores and then buying them off Amazon. Can't do anti-steering in that direction.

They rejected our PDF spec sheets for having links to our website.

I miss the world wide web where you could link to sites.

They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site.

This is straight up cartelization and can no longer be called a "market".

jpollock
2 replies
1h30m

It's important to get the analogies close.

The bookstore isn't the same. It would be if the book had a QR code on the back labeled "guaranteed cheaper here" - not just the UPC/ISBN.

The customer is choosing to price compare somewhere else, that's not steering, that's brand loyalty.

AlexandrB
1 replies
1h11m

Wasn't this literally a feature of the Amazon app? You could scan a book's UPC and have it pull up the Amazon listing.

jpollock
0 replies
27m

Sure, but that's _still_ customer brand loyalty. The _book_ isn't advertising "Go to Amazon for the cheapest prices" on the cover.

tikkabhuna
2 replies
5h15m

They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase.

But Apple aren't doing that, really. If I find a link to an App Store app on a website and install it via App Store (as that's the only option), Apple have put no effort into finding a customer. In fact, they've injected themselves into the process by requiring apps come via the App Store.

toasterlovin
0 replies
17m

No they haven't? An app can sell a customer access to their app outside the App Store, give them an account that they can use to access full functionality, direct them to the App Store to download the app, and Apple doesn't take anything. Apple gets a cut when they facilitate the sale, which they absolutely do when a customer is directed to the app in the App Store and then can buy the app with a single tap (knowing it has undergone some degree of vetting and that they can get a refund if they're not happy). If you don't think that is providing immense value, then just consider the difficulty of selling software outside of the App Store. To an approximation, it basically doesn't happen except with B2B SaaS (which notoriously requires a very expensive sales and marketing function).

detourdog
0 replies
1h31m

The developer could probably sell them same app service directly through a webpage and use that in the advertisement link instead of the App Store link.

kevingadd
1 replies
5h26m

I don't know what your product is, but this feels like it tremendously undervalues the hard work you've done to create a good product:

And, honestly, they’re completely justified, IMO. They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase.

Amazon is just a dumb pipe for your product and for payments. Sure, they have world-class infrastructure, but it's still a replaceable service, other companies do it successfully. Some % of those customers would find you without Amazon, especially if you advertised or put your product on other marketplaces.

This mindset also allows Amazon to exploit you, because you've already decided you'll accept anything they decide to do.

"We can't link to our website" is INSANE. It means any other company can undercut you or impersonate you on Amazon because your customers have no relationship with you as a company! That's terrifying!

AlexandrB
0 replies
1h7m

"We can't link to our website" is INSANE. It means any other company can undercut you or impersonate you on Amazon because your customers have no relationship with you as a company!

It's even better when Amazon undercuts you with an Amazon Basics product. As a bonus they'll give the Amazon Basics product a preferential position in search too.

stale2002
0 replies
21m

Why should they then have to allow us to steer that customer off of their site to complete the sale?

Because we live in a democratic society with laws that are voted on, and voters are perfectly able to decide what rules they want to live by.

If Apple doesn't like it, then they can shut down their entire company or move out of those countries that have the full democratic authority to decide how businesses run in their country.

knallfrosch
15 replies
6h35m

If Apple had any competitive ground to stand on, it would not bother banning other app stores.

Customers would love to pay the 30% Apple tax for security and the great selection of apps.

grishka
9 replies
6h8m

MacOS is a great example of what happens when that competitive ground does exist. Most Mac apps are distributed outside of the app store, some aren't even notarized.

burnerthrow008
4 replies
2h55m

Yes, it is! Look at how much smaller MacOS market share is compared to iOS in their respective markets. Stated preference vs. revealed preference.

grishka
1 replies
2h46m

US and Japan are the two unusual countries where iOS has more market share than Android. In the rest of the world, iOS is maybe 20%. For computers the situation is exacerbated by the fact that many people own one mostly for gaming, which means it's going to be Windows. Whereas an iPhone is considered a status symbol.

rmbyrro
0 replies
2h8m

In the rest of the world, iOS is maybe 20%

If you count the number of devices. By app store sales, the figure is maybe 50%, probably higher.

detourdog
1 replies
1h35m

MacOS also isn’t connected to a cellular network.

grishka
0 replies
55m

And what difference does that make with regard to software distribution models? It can easily be connected to a cellular network using one of those USB modem sticks btw.

YetAnotherNick
1 replies
2h4m

Android is the more closer to iOS example though. They have alt store and you can also download app through chrome, yet most users only use Google's play store.

wongarsu
0 replies
39m

* Most users only use Google's play store, except for apps not available there

Certain categories of apps aren't deemed acceptable by Google (e.g. apps with adult content, apps that circumvent copyright, some "hacking" apps, etc). If you want any of those they are easy enough to find and sideload.

There is also a big community pirating legitimate Android apps. According to some for every one purchase ten people use a pirated version.

mgrandl
0 replies
3h9m

Yes because developers don’t want to pay $100 to then go through a super annoying notarization process to distribute their FOSS app.

kube-system
0 replies
50m

The desktop is kind of a different space, though.

Most of the paid apps I've ever used on MacOS are well-known and cross-platform -- the kind of thing where you'd go to the developers website directly by name. So, of course the developer is going to guide those people down a path where they get all the revenue.

And the users of FOSS apps are overwhelmingly the people who will download a DMG from GitHub releases, and change their security settings to install it -- so why bother?

But for everyone else -- the $4.99 apps that aren't household names -- the App Store is probably where these are most often purchased. Although I doubt this market is very large on the desktop -- most people just use a browser and maybe some well known software that would have come in a box 20 years ago.

bigdubs
3 replies
3h9m

People assuming this is a competitive posture exclusively are missing the point.

The app store isn't just about making more money, it's about enforcing privacy and security guidelines for apps through the review process and through checks for unauthorized api usage.

Apple's product is privacy; they view privacy as a premium feature worth paying for, and 3rd party app stores that are the wild west for privacy are antithetical to this.

luyu_wu
1 replies
2h52m

Said customers who care about privacy would therefore continue to use the App Store.

detourdog
0 replies
1h33m

Why should Apple divert resources creating a secondary environment?

jiveturkey
0 replies
1h43m

which is about brand marketing, which is about making more money. without the differentiation of the app store, they are that much closer to being android.

Apple's product is privacy

that's a large component of their brand, not their product.

for contrast, signal's product is privacy. (note: i'm no fan of signal)

consider that the facebook app is allowed, on the first party app store. i'm failing to see how the app store gates privacy.

mrbigbob
0 replies
6h22m

i dont think apple is too concerned with the end user using a 3rd party store but the large companies having the ability to host their app on a 3rd party store sidestepping apples fee entirely. thats what truely scares them.

thefounder
7 replies
4h11m

I think visa and Mastercard have the same behaviour even supported by the governments. You can’t add the visa fee to the checkout.

thefounder
1 replies
1h29m

I think that’s a different fee. As a merchant accepting credit card or debit card payments is going to cost you the same 2-3%. At least that’s what Stripe or local payment processors charge

bhelkey
0 replies
1h6m

Stripe charges 1.5% + €0.25 ($0.27) in the EU to accept EEA cards [1]. Stripe charges 2.9% + $0.30 for processing domestic cards in the US [2].

The reason it charges 1.4% more for accepting US cards is the US card fees (interchange fees). These fees are complicated and roughly five times more than European card fees [3].

[1] https://stripe.com/en-fr/pricing

[2] https://stripe.com/pricing

[3] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-car...

ang_cire
0 replies
2h47m

What? Basically every store I go to adds a fee for credit transactions.

BooneJS
0 replies
4h6m

And yet several places do. “Menu reflects cash prices” and “tuition payment via credit card will be subject to a 3.5% fee” are 2 I got this week.

AlexandrB
0 replies
1h6m

The typical way stores get around it in Canada is with a "discount" if you pay cash.

mrtksn
7 replies
6h50m

I wonder if everything would have been simple if the regulation itself was something death-simple like:

If you control the software of the hardware you sell, you must refund with the inflation adjusted sums the users at any time they return their hardware.

This way, companies can choose if they are renting platforms they deliver their services like the TV boxes some cable providers will rent, or of they are selling products and the users can choose to do whatever they like with it.

The makers can still provide and and sell services on devices they built but they will have to be good at it.

pmontra
3 replies
6h38m

How would it play out? A scenario is that I could buy an iPhone for 1000 Euro, use it for one year, return it, get my 1k back and use it to buy a newer model. Basically they would be working for free or they'd have to increase the price of 1k per year, with huge discounts for whoever swaps an Android for an iPhone.

mrtksn
2 replies
6h30m

It would be up to them to choose their models. If they want to keep the closed model where you can't use the device you purchase in absence of Apple, they will have to charge accordingly for the device and services and do the refunds if the user no longer want the device. I guess people would like yearly updates, so Apple will have to operate drastically differently to keep the closed platform model.

Alternatively, they can sell the devices as today and provide a method to install any software the user wishes and even to remove iOS from the device. I guess they will be required to produce a basic documentation on all this so others can create the alternative services but wouldn't be required to modify their own software and services.

pmontra
1 replies
5h44m

So, the device is sold at a loss at 100 Euro but it doesn't work without mandatory services that cost 500 Euro per year?

mrtksn
0 replies
5h14m

Maybe, I don't know. Its up to the companies to do the math, who would like to pursue this model. If it's not feasible, the shouldn't be doing it though. AFAIK BoM is usually no that high, so it can be viable.

Anyway, maybe some depreciation calculations might be used to account for wear&tear but the core idea is that if you are selling something that works only on your other services by actively preventing competition you shouldn't be charging for the hardware that delivers that and the money you take upfront is just a fully refundable deposit to cover stuff like the consumer breaking the device or taking it but not using the services.

blackoil
2 replies
3h16m

That would be very bad for customers and Apple will love it. Instead of buying iPhone you'll subscribe to it and pay $99/m for iphone+one+Apple telecom

mrtksn
1 replies
2h58m

What’s stopping them from doing it now then?

luyu_wu
0 replies
2h39m

They do (or did for some time).

isodev
2 replies
7h1m

Add to that the fact that the App Store only supports certain kinds of payment and subscription formats. Paid major upgrades, volume discounts for apps with IAPs or subscriptions , etc. - not possible at all.

Apple's restrictions are so deep as to dictate the very way we choose to monetize our apps. And all the fearmongering about choosing to publish to an alternative store. It needs to stop.

strongpigeon
0 replies
42m

They also implicitly prevent businesses where the margins are less than 30% unless it relies on ads.

cageface
0 replies
6h25m

No paid upgrades is the huge issue. By fiat they eliminated the mechanism by which small developers survived for decades before the app store. It couldn't be any harder for them to support than the crazy IAP dance they make you do instead or the subscriptions they foist on everything.

biftek
2 replies
1h8m

Is there any marketplace that allows a seller to advertise a cheaper alternative within their marketplace?

sylens
1 replies
1h3m

Nobody is asking for the ability to put a label on their App Store listing that shows the price of the same software or subscription on the web. What they're doing is akin to dictating what the creator of a product could put in the manual or paperwork that comes in the box - you know, where you'll often find manufacturer's coupons and adverts for registering your product with their website.

biftek
0 replies
54m

Ok, guess I'm out of the loop then, I thought they already allowed that

seventyone
1 replies
6h20m

If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers?

Because if would harm shareholder value. You don't need a more complicated explanation about the whole situation.

ang_cire
0 replies
2h45m

If customers being informed about your business practices will result in harm to shareholder value, you've got a problem.

rmbyrro
1 replies
2h11m

Imagine if Steve Jobs was starting today, that famous super bowl advert from 1984 would allude to Apple, instead of IBM...

ThePowerOfFuet
0 replies
1h16m

... Ouch.

Not wrong.

ksec
0 replies
1h35m

Apple without Steve Jobs is

1. Not very good at explaining itself.

2. Not entirely sure why things are done in a certain way, they their changes it and revert to Steve jobs's way, or they refused to change and did not understand why Steve decided on doing certain things in the first place.

3. Not a very coherent company. Still better than most other companies except may be Jensen in Nvidia.

hulitu
0 replies
3h26m

why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers?

Because the ripped off customers must keep paying. Why pay 30% more ?

grecy
0 replies
2h20m

indispuitable how wrong it is that Apple prevents developers from explaining these rules to their users

Absolutely. This is the same as giving Candy to a child and saying "don't tell anyone" or your boss saying you can't tell coworkers how much you're being paid.

The fact they want to keep it a secret shows something fishy is going on, and they know it.

jstsch
47 replies
8h0m

As a EU-citizen, I'm not happy with this legislation and enforcement. I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to go with Android. Those phones are much cheaper and are very much the same quality-wise (performance, screen, form factor...).

The same goes with iOS on iPad. I'm very happy that my parents can use those devices versus a Windows machine (or even a MacBook) and know that they are pretty much safe from malware.

Even now, I noticed that with the mandatory browser selection screen both my parents independently have moved on from built-in Safari to Chrome (independently), since that was the only browser name they know. And now they are in a much worse position privacy-wise than before. Which is certainly not in the spirit of the GDPR and DMA.

EMIRELADERO
21 replies
7h59m

How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of Apple's control impact your enjoyment of your devices?

vsl
10 replies
7h11m

See GDPR side effect of annoying banners everywhere even if I don't give a damn about my website visits information being processed, for how unintended consequences played out and made the web worse for everyone.

For DMA specifically, see Apple withholding Screen Mirroring (a feature I would enjoy tremendously) from EU for fear (IMHO quite reasonable) that the vaguely written DMA could be interpreted as requiring them to open mirroring to 3rd parties.

It's been just a few months and already DMA impacted my enjoyment of my devices, no?

xandrius
7 replies
6h27m

Just for your info, the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users.

If you also don't care about yourself, it's worse for you but many others now have the chance to deny providers of their scummy way to make money off unwitting users.

shagie
6 replies
6h2m

Here is the home page of the European Union https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en

There is a banner.

The European Commission on data protection https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_e...

There is a banner.

The press release for the current enforcement against Apple https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...

There is a banner.

the banners are absolutely not required and they are the band aid solution of websites who don't give a crap about their users.

If this is true, it says a lot about the organization running those websites.

alt227
5 replies
4h30m

Parent is right, banners are not required by GDPR. These websites do not reflect the people in the organisations they represent, they are made by developers like the rest of us who are following the crowd like sheep.

shagie
4 replies
3h58m

From https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en

    3. Analytics cookies

    We use these purely for internal research on how we can improve the service we provide for all our users.

    The cookies simply assess how you interact with our website – as an anonymous user (they data gathered does not identify you personally).

    Also, this data is not shared with any third parties or used for any other purpose. The anonymised statistics could be shared with contractors working on communication projects under contractual agreement with the European Commission.

    However, you are free to refuse these types of cookies – either via the cookie banner you will see on the first page you visit or at Europa Analytics.
That appears to be things covered by the GDPR and that they need some way to inform you that you can reject them ... and that's done with a banner that allows you to reject those cookies.

Given that analytics is used, and that has cookies that track information, they're required to have that notification somehow. That page doesn't appear to be a "developers following the crowd like sheep" but rather "the requirements of the law are followed to the spirit and letter and the easiest and most accessible way to provide that functionality is with a banner."

alt227
3 replies
3h47m

I agree with your points, but with this...

the easiest and most accessible way to provide that functionality is with a banner.

I read that as 'the laziest way'.

shagie
2 replies
3h32m

Designing the website in a way that works with browsers that meet the requirements of https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-in... and https://commission.europa.eu/resources-partners/europa-web-g...

The banner works for its requirements with GDPR and meets the requirements for accessibility.

Surely, one cannot expect that companies trying to save costs will go through great lengths to implement something that they don't know if it will work or not or if they'll get sued in the EU if they implement a different solution when the EU themselves implement it this way.

If there is a better way of doing it that doesn't lead to lawsuits, the EU's website should be the first ones to implement and demonstrate an easier and more accessible way to comply with the GPDR.

As it is, the websites of europa.eu are setting the standard for companies to follow when they want to make sure that they don't get sued for failure to comply with the GPDR for website notifications and accessibility within the EU.

alt227
1 replies
3h21m

Have you read GDPR? I have many times, as I am a data controller for multiple companies.

I urge you to go and read it, and then come back and continue the conversation.

https://gdpr-info.eu/

This is an issue I regulary face, people not being educated on what the damn thing actually is. A general catchall banner on intial website load is the laziest and most intrusive way to get compliance, but its the easiest for developers so they generally take that way out.

shagie
0 replies
2h46m

As a company, if I were to implement something that is unknown to be in compliance with the spirit or letter of the GDPR, it is possible that the company would get sued within the EU.

The way to ensure that you don't get sued is to copy the structure of the one website that you know is in compliance with the GPDR and follow their lead.

When reading the GPDR text from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html I see a cookie banner. If it works there and that is the example of how to be in compliance with the obligations of a website for cookies? Would some other implementation that isn't done that way be risky in that the courts in Europe could decide that it wasn't done correctly?

Until the websites of europa.eu change to show an alternative way to be in compliance with cookie notification for the GDPR, banners remain the least risky (and yes, easiest and laziest) way to try to remain in compliance.

Nothing in the GPDR says "thou shalt have a banner" - but that's not the issue at hand. What is the least risky way for a company to implement the requirements of GDPR given that's the way europa.eu does it?

hindsightbias
0 replies
2h44m

It's interesting the views in the threads of "screw your parents if they can't figure out how to protect themselves w/o iOS/AppStore" to "we must think of the children and protect them from cookies"

Moldoteck
0 replies
3h42m

the only problem with gdpr is that it didn't push far enough. If your browser provides a header with accept/reject all, a banner should not be shown. Also, GDPR does have many other interesting things, including being able to download/delete your data

endisneigh
9 replies
7h49m

The general argument is that the changes end up being annoying.

Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience

alt227
6 replies
4h32m

I never understand this argument.

iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them?

There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.

jstsch
3 replies
3h57m

iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all.

No, this is not allowed and currently also not the case. When you're setting up a new iPhone, one of the questions during setup is which browser do you want to use.

alt227
2 replies
3h57m

Then IMO this went too far. All they needed to do was allow people to doanload alternatives if they want them.

gbalduzzi
1 replies
3h28m

EU did this to Microsoft years ago to disrupt the internet explorer monopoly. It wouldn't be fair to not demand Apple and Google to do the same now

alt227
0 replies
3h13m

I agree, except Windows had a massive PC monopoly back then. Apple doesnt have nearly that same monopoly today. It shares it with Google and in some markets it lags behind Googles user numbers.

robertfall
0 replies
3h59m

In the EU Safari is no longer used by default. You're forced to choose a browser when setting up the phone.

endisneigh
0 replies
2h54m

Suppose there were a rule that there could be no defaults ever, and all of the apps are randomly arranged in the App Store for the sake of fairness.

Your argument would be equally true, you could just scroll and scroll until you find the app you’re looking for, but surely you’d agree the experience would be worse?

Novosell
1 replies
4h26m

That's not very clear to me. How would it affect anything?

endisneigh
0 replies
2h56m

If there were no 3rd party apps everything else could be coupled, no App Store, etc.

Depending on particular user design goals, the experience could be far superior at the expense of being limited.

lucianbr
11 replies
7h56m

You're upset that your parents were free to make some choice that you feel is wrong, and you believe Apple should be allowed to take that choice away from them?

Honestly, I feel that Apple has completely brainwashed some people. Comments like yours abound, complaining about the dangers and disadvantages of freedom and choice. You're only a few words away from "freedom is slavery".

matwood
9 replies
6h21m

You're assuming the OPs parents made an informed choice. Chrome might be the only name they recognized so they picked it. Is Chrome really the best choice for them? Hard to know. A bunch of choices up front is also generally bad UX. Reasonable defaults that can be changed later are likely better for the average user.

lucianbr
8 replies
5h32m

No, I'm not assuming that. The freedom to make a choice is not contingent on your being informed. Imagine being kept in jail with the pretext "you are not yet fully informed of what is out there, so we're not letting you go out for your own good".

Anyway, OP can just inform their parents and fix this thing, if that was really the problem.

Is Chrome really the best choice for them? Hard to know.

If you imagine this is a good argument for taking choice away from people, you are damaged. There is no freedom if you get to restrict people until they will make the choice you feel is perfect for them. Freedom means freedom to make mistakes. It's not like Chrome is explosive, and if handled incorrectly it may kill its user and some innocent bystanders to boot.

Really doubling down on the absurd arguments.

jstsch
5 replies
4h42m

Anyway, OP can just inform their parents and fix this thing, if that was really the problem.

Yes, the little time we have in our lives, I really want to spend talking with my parents about topics like browser choices.

alt227
2 replies
4h34m

Something like this is really important considering the future of all of our live is digital whether we like it or not.

Have those discussions, educate them on choices, and it will make their lives much safer going forward.

badwolf
1 replies
3h43m

Have you ... ever dealt with people? This doesn't seem to be the typical reality for most.

alt227
0 replies
3h41m

Very much. I am the 'tech person' whithin family and friends. I used to just do everything for them which was a chore. Since then I have discovered if I educate them on what a browser is, the choices they have, and how you can try multiple ones if you are having issues, then they very often start solving problems and looking further into things themselves.

People very often dont have a clue what things like app permissions are and just blindly accept them all. Aftrer educating and showing them, they are much more careful in checking what they are accepting.

Teach a person to fish is my motto, you should try it sometime! I dont see why that opinion deserves downvotes but there you go.

hu3
0 replies
4h15m

You'll have to do it anyway.

I have to explain on average once a month to family why some websites break on "the Apple internet app" (safari) and they should use Firefox or Chrome for critical stuff instead.

Had to explain again yesterday because Safari crashed to a white screen error on my wife's macbook while she was trying to buy plane tickets.

Firefox just worked.

Internet browsers are very present in 2024.

Moldoteck
0 replies
3h44m

considering all this ai gen improvements, you should talk to them not just about browsers... scams that do imit ppl's voices are on the rise, you should also talk to them about being virgilent about some websites that do try to trick ppl, maybe even give some examples. The web is not safe and soon it'll be even less safe if there are photos of you/videos with your voice registered & available online

npilk
0 replies
5h10m

Imagine being kept in jail with the pretext "you are not yet fully informed of what is out there, so we're not letting you go out for your own good".

Isn't this basically what school is for children?

I don't think it's crazy that people might have a range of preferences for how "locked down" a device or ecosystem is. One end of the spectrum might be Linux phones and the other might be those Jitterbug (?) phones for old people that can only dial a few preset numbers. Android would be more towards Linux and Apple more towards Jitterbug.

But I do think Apple should be more transparent with their users, and has generally been "maliciously complying" with these regulations.

matwood
0 replies
1h49m

I also said that it should be changeable later - so I'm not taking away anyones choice. Sticking a bunch of questions in front of a user, when all they really want to do is use their new phone almost feels like a dark pattern. They just pick whatever and move on. Is that really any better than default that can be changed later? IDK, other than randomly getting people using something different.

jstsch
0 replies
7h27m

No, of course, everyone should be free to have the choice to install whichever software they want on devices that they own. E.g. put the phone in developer/hobbyist mode by connecting it with a USB cable to a PC, show some big fat warnings, and then allow all forms of sideloading. But it needs to be like a safety switch.

Then the matter of an informed browser choice. This is simply not a thing most regular people make or care about. Remember the Internet Explorer era? In this case, simply the most recognisable picture gets chosen (e.g. the only company that advertised their browser).

jstsch
8 replies
7h36m

Downvotes for an alternate viewpoint, what is this, Reddit?

isleyaardvark
4 replies
5h32m

This is a big enough forum that you will find anti-Apple posters that will reflexively downvote anything sympathetic to Apple.

m3kw9
3 replies
4h54m

a lot of people actually clueless on why apple charge a fee so they are like, why are you charging? the web didn't charge me either. when in fact apple provides all the infrastructure, distribution, security, payment system.

alt227
2 replies
4h27m

It depends which way you look at it.

You seem to be saying 'Look at all this infrastructure Apple gives you for free, of course you should pay them their cut'.

You could look at it the other way and say 'They made all this infrastructure in order to lock in vendors and monopolise the app market, thereby forcing you to pay them their cut'.

If posts on HN are anything to go by, it seems this perspective is decided simply by whether you like Apple or not!

m3kw9
1 replies
3h8m

Providing a good service which “lock you in” is a good thing. What do you rather?

alt227
0 replies
3h1m

Is that sarcastic? If not I feel you have missed the point of this whole thread/argument.

People would rather the freedom to choose what they buy, who they buy it from, and where they buy it. This freedom of choice is much more important to a great many people than being locked in to a service 'because its good'.

pstric
0 replies
7h10m

Answers seem to imply the downvotes are for a naïve rather than alternate viewpoint.

gbalduzzi
0 replies
3h30m

It's not an alternative viewpoint, it's just plain missing the point.

The strength of Apple products and their ecosystem does not require apple forcing a monopoly on payments in their ecosystem.

If they stop abusing their position, their products will be just as good and as secure. I don't see the correlation between the article linked and that comment

jdiez17
1 replies
7h47m

I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers.

Me too.

The same goes with iOS on iPad. I'm very happy that my parents can use those devices versus a Windows machine (or even a MacBook) and know that they are pretty much safe from malware.

iOS (and Android) are very different position, security-wise, than desktop operating systems (Windows, Linux, macOS) because of the strong application isolation and permissions system. On a desktop OS ~any software you run has access to ~all your files (https://xkcd.com/1200/). Even as a die-hard desktop Linux user, we have to recognize that Apple leads in platform security, both in mobile and on the desktop. Take a look at Hector Martin’s (from Asahi Linux) thoughts on this.

both my parents independently have moved on from built-in Safari to Chrome (independently), since that was the only browser name they know. And now they are in a much worse position privacy-wise than before. Which is certainly not in the spirit of the GDPR and DMA.

Two thoughts here: 1) the point of the GDPR and DMA is to give people the choice. In my opinion, choice is good. 2) people choosing things that hinder their privacy because they “don’t know better” is, well, an education problem.

Of course the GDPR/ePrivacy directive is notorious for lax enforcement (it’s ramping up, though) of illegal techniques and dark patterns like making it more difficult to reject unnecessary spyware cookies than to accept them. I predict the same will happen with the DMA.

arthur-st
0 replies
5h2m

It’s worth noting that ePrivacy directive is an EU directive, in contrast to GDPR being an EU regulation.

Inconsistent enforcement is a feature of directives. The comment on the GDPR though is full-well valid.

gbalduzzi
0 replies
7h50m

I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers

And nobody wants to destroy the ecosystem. Just make it default, but not mandatory.

Moldoteck
0 replies
3h51m

as eu citizen i'm happy with it. I have both a pixel and an iphone and imo you can continue using app store apps if you are afraid of security (let's not dive into this argument, bc the statements about security in some cases are false), while others will use other app stores when/where they want, that's kinda the point, you as a user can decide what to do. If you are afraid about your grandma/kids installing something, I'm fairly sure there's(or will be) an option in settings to limit such actions. It's true that ppl do need more education related to digital privacy, on the other hand, who knows if chrome is much worse than safari, and if they use chrome on their laptops... chances are the data is already collected, if they use google - data is already collected.

igammarays
43 replies
5h28m

Apple's App Store policy is unbelievably ridiculously hubristic. Imagine if Google/Microsoft charged you 30% of your entire business just because you ran it on top of Excel/Sheets and Gmail/Outlook. Or if Adobe took a 30% royalty from all artists creative works. It's madness, plain and simple. Developers already pay an annual fee to publish to the App Store, and consumers pay massive dollar to buy their iDevices. And yet they still have the nerve to demand 30% of entire business revenue, and charge a tax even when conducted outside of the App Store (so-called Core Technology Fee)? Even most governments in the world don't tax out-of-jurisdiction income.

lolinder
29 replies
4h46m

Imagine if Steam took 30% of all sales on their platform! Or if Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft charged developers 30% for online app sales! (Spoiler: they all do).

There are lots of things worth criticizing about Apple's model, but I'll never understand the fixation on the 30% rule. They provide a distribution platform that is every bit as robust and has a much larger reach than the video game consoles, and if they want to charge the same prices as the consoles I don't see why that's the hill to die on when there are so many other things that are more obviously rotten.

hu3
21 replies
4h29m

Steam is one of the many app stores I can use.

Not the only one.

Meanwhile Apple forces their app store down their customers throat. And charges for the forced privilege.

Consoles are not general purpose devices. But I wouldn't mind if EU went after them as well

lolinder
11 replies
4h4m

Steam is one of the many app stores I can use.

Not the only one.

A) For the video game consoles this isn't true, they have full control just like Apple does.

B) Like I said, there are better hills to die on. App store monopoly is one that makes more sense to me (though I still actually disagree with the mainstream HN consensus on it).

paulmd
4 replies
3h48m

Steam also leans on the same anticompetitive "most-favored nation" agreements as Amazon. Sure, you don't have to list on Steam... but if you do, you better not try to go around their cut and list elsewhere at a lower price, either.

They have very positive mindshare with gamers but at the end of the day gaben's not your buddy either.

inexcf
1 replies
3h24m

But you can sell steam keys with Valve taking a 0% cut.

jeffhuys
0 replies
2h38m

See the 2 sibling comments 10 mins before you

JohnnyMarcone
1 replies
3h32m

Steam lets you sell Steam keys directly or via a third party and they take a 0% cut. That's how places like greenman gaming, humble bundle, etc work. You still get to use all Steam's infrastructure but pay no fee.

paulmd
0 replies
3h14m

that's a mechanism intended to grant keys to reviewers and such, you can't use that as a primary transaction mechanism. steam has an unspecified threshold at which they will kick you off the platform for abusing that, they aren't there to be a free delivery platform for external sales and if it makes up a plurality of your sales they'll pull the plug.

you'll note humble bundle isn't literally the only sales those publishers make on those games, or even a majority of their sales, and it's also something that's specially blessed by valve. if you pull that as a random shit publisher not through humble bundle you'll get kicked off.

alt227
4 replies
4h1m

A) For the video game consoles this isn't true, they have full control just like Apple does.

You can still go to any physical retail store and buy a game developed by a 3rd party. Yes that 3rd Party company had to pay a license fee to release the game on the hardware but you can still choose where you want to buy that game from, including any sales or discounts that retailer might see fit to try to gain your custom.

lolinder
3 replies
3h53m

Which is a right that Apple was willing to concede, but people flipped out when they announced you'd still have to pay the fee.

Consoles get a pass for things that Apple gets raked over the coals for. There's clearly something more going on than just "these specific behaviors are unacceptable always", which is the simplified take that gets popular on HN.

alt227
2 replies
3h49m

Which is a right that Apple was willing to concede

Begrudgly and in a way that is very much viewed as malicious compliance, hence them now being investigated for it.

but people flipped out when they announced you'd still have to pay the fee

I agree with them

When I buy an App from the app store, Apple should take a cut for providing the infrastructure, payment system etc, thats fair.

If I am buying something from a company directly from their website or marketplace, for a service they provide in that app, why should I pay Apple a fee?

burnerthrow008
1 replies
2h23m

If I am buying something from a company directly from their website or marketplace, for a service they provide in that app, why should I pay Apple a fee?

Ok, but explain to me why it is ok for Sony to charge a license fee to release a game that is only sold in retail stores as physical copies, while it is not ok for Apple to charge a similar fee?

The parent's point is that HN goes all frothy-mouthed about the $0.50/download fee from Apple, and then uses pretzel logic to justify why it is ok for Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo to do the exact same thing.

alt227
0 replies
12m

I think that the issue here is that every person and their grandma has an iphone, and so they are a bigger target. Pretty much every single person in the western world has a mobile phone, and the majority of those are iPhones.

No matter how hard you try to compare this to the console market, its apples and oranges. The amount of xboxes sold and the market they are sold to just pales in insignificance compared to Apples domination of the world.

Also the gaming world has a much shittier nemesis, gambling. The loot box and microtransaction scandals have overshadowed any issues with store fees. I feel if these things hadnt been so big over the last decade, there would have been much more focus on the payment issues of app stores.

As a kicker, I feel that the courts would probably argue that the console world is very specific to gaming, and therefore is a much more targetted audience. Phones have apps for everrything that run your life, hell you cant even get a bus ticket or do any banking where Im from if you dont have a smart phone. So it is much more of a lifestyle device which is required to live in the modern age, whereas consoles are purely entertainment.

treeFall
0 replies
2h58m

App store monopoly is one that makes more sense to me

Am I misreading this, or are you advocating for a monopoly? In what world is a monopoly better for consumers?

criddell
7 replies
3h10m

How is a console not a general purpose device? If I gave you a PS5 dev kit, what software would you be unable to port?

hu3
3 replies
2h43m

Economical viably? No software.

It's a platform for games.

With input devices targeted for games.

With an operational system target for games.

criddell
2 replies
2h19m

It's a platform for games.

Primarily. Some can also play Blu-ray disks and all can stream music and movies from a bunch of different sources. The PS5 also has integrations with some social media sites and a built-in web browser. The PS5 Game Base application also lets you call and text other PS5 users.

With input devices targeted for games.

But also bluetooth keyboard and mouse support.

With an operational system target for games.

Did you have something specific in mind for this?

hu3
1 replies
1h53m

You're seriously asking me how is Playstation OS targeted at games?

Sorry I wont indulge in this level of discussion.

Waste of time for all involved.

criddell
0 replies
43m

I'm asking because the OS kernel is FreeBSD 11. They definitely have added to it to create a great system for running games, but the basic OS is general purpose unix-like.

The PS2 and 3 had full user Linux support so those were obviously general purpose PCs. They removed Linux support for the PS4 and 5 though and apparently they are no longer general purpose computers.

What would Apple have to remove from the iPad or iPhone in order for people to stop saying they are general purpose computers?

zeta0134
2 replies
3h2m

It's mostly about intent: just about no one on the planet looks at the marketing for a PlayStation 5 and expects to be able to use it to file their taxes. That device is sold as a multimedia platform; that it happens to be a general purpose computer with software locks is irrelevant to it's stated purpose. The consumer is pretty well aware of what they're getting.

Not so with your average Apple device with access to the App Store, outside of maybe the TVs these days. The iPad ad that made all the headlines recently was clearly trying to bill it as a general purpose everything device with few if any such limitations. In terms of how the devices are marketed to consumers, it's night and day, and that does make a huge difference when trying to determine if consumers have been mislead by shady business practices.

burnerthrow008
0 replies
2h19m

just about no one on the planet looks at the marketing for a PlayStation 5 and expects to be able to use it to file their taxes

Ah, this old chestnut of circular reasoning. It's not a general purpose computer because people think it isn't, so they don't use it as one because it's not a general purpose computer.

The consumer is pretty well aware of what they're getting.

Is the consumer not well aware that iOS is a walled garden?

endisneigh
0 replies
2h52m

Consoles are not general purpose devices. But I wouldn't mind if EU went after them as

Silly argument. All of the consoles support apps.

hylaride
2 replies
4h8m

AFAIK, steam doesn't prevent developers from also allowing their games to be installed outside of steam (if so, then that's a problem).

It's the fact that there's no alternative to get spotify, etc onto your phone that's the ultimate issue. The security of the app store in an enourmous advantage, but they're using it to extract huge premiums.

Like it or not, our phones have become the primary medium we use for news, entertainment, etc. If it were me, I'd allow side-loading of apps onto the app store, but they'd then have zero access to your contacts, unique phone IDs, and strict privacy rules. Apple could still enforce malware via the apple subscription. Essentially, they can make it like MacOS, but not allow any unsigned apps.

lolinder
1 replies
3h47m

AFAIK, steam doesn't prevent developers from also allowing their games to be installed outside of steam (if so, then that's a problem).

Yep, that's something that's better worth focusing on than 30%.

madeofpalk
0 replies
3h41m

Which is why DMA says nothing about 30%, and this complaint is largely about Apple forbidding steering.

badwolf
2 replies
4h25m

Everyone also conveniently forgets that in many cases, Apple is only charging 15%, not 30 (small business, long-term subscriptions, etc...)

hylaride
0 replies
4h5m

15% can still be too much. Alternative music, book, etc stores often have high IP payments that make the business case impossible because 15% is more than the profit margin. And apple doesn't have that 15% for it's music and book store. It's the definition of monopoly privilege.

lxgr
0 replies
2h26m

Imagine if Steam were the only way to purchase games on your Windows PC.

euroderf
4 replies
4h12m

30% is arguably justified for some tangible goods, depending on the value add of the channel(s) for sales & distribution.

But digital goods? Thievery.

lolinder
3 replies
4h3m

Tell that to Steam, which is generally well liked by developers and users alike.

There's clearly something else going on than just the 30% number, and it's worth investigating what that is rather than fixating on the wrong thing.

andersa
1 replies
3h31m

The difference here is that you don't have to use Steam. For example, Epic Games is doing just fine providing downloads for Fortnite themselves.

madeofpalk
0 replies
3h42m

It's never actually been about the 30%, it's just that that's the easiest manifestation. It's Apple's insistance to insert themselves into the relationship between developers and their users.

The fee could be next-to-free and many would still be upset if they're not able to use their own payments infrastructure. Developers are not able to offer customers refunds on IAP or discounts or credits.

Steam demonstrates that it's not about the 30%. It shows how 30% is viable in a competetive market if it's what consumers (and developers) prefer.

dialup_sounds
3 replies
4h56m

Imagine

Google's Play Store and Microsoft's Xbox charge the same as Apple's App Store.

Microsoft's Windows Store charges less, but nobody uses it store anyway.

yokoprime
2 replies
3h30m

Because side-loading is a thing that works well on Windows.

dialup_sounds
0 replies
2h45m

That's true, but on the other hand you have Steam, et al. that are popular in spite of that. Or the Mac App Store on macOS.

alt227
0 replies
2h51m

Not only works well, but is the default accepted way of installing applications.

tensor
1 replies
2h52m

In the world of physical products, brick and mortar stores will take 40-50% of the revenue for selling your product. This is the norm. Even worse, production, shipping, and accounting all also cost vastly more.

So while the 30% take of the app store is likely too much, you can't really do an "imagine if" because actually prior to the software industry things were far far far more difficult.

igammarays
0 replies
2h8m

Yeah but physical products are hard work, and cost a lot to store, move and display properly. Yet you can still sell directly to consumer if you wish. Software distribution costs basically nothing on the internet, AND Apple makes it impossible to sell directly to the user.

pier25
1 replies
3h33m

Not only Apple charges their tax but they decide if you can distribute your iOS code to users.

You can work for a year on an app for iPhone or iPad and then not be able to distribute it if Apple doesn't want to. This is not even hypothetical.

Apple owns 30% of your business but has 100% control of it.

flutas
0 replies
2h37m

You can work for a year on an app for iPhone or iPad and then not be able to distribute it if Apple doesn't want to.

Happened to my company.

At the time they had no guidelines on sending "tips" digitally, and when we asked for an exception (before building) we were granted it.

Submission day, rejected.

Cue 3 months of back and forth, which ended with "yeah, you gotta use IAP for that, and we're gonna take 30% from the tips."

penguinbasher
36 replies
8h13m

Apple's app-store policies are anti-competitive. Even though they recently 'allowed' (How kind of them) publishers to create a link to an external form of payment, where the offer may be better, Apple still demands a significant slice of commission.

I think many users would continue to use in-app purchases as it is a convenient way to pay, but the actions from Apple are poor and heavily restrictive. To save yourself some money, if subscribing, always go to the website, you'll get a better offer than within the app and more of your money will go to the publisher.

sem000
32 replies
8h9m

This forum will never understand is that 95% of Apple users DO NOT want to go to a random website and download to save a few bucks.

If they were interested in saving a few bucks, they would be using Androids.

Why can this not be comprehended by a forum of such intellect?

We don’t care about the fees, and the hoops Apple makes developers jump through, because before Apple everything was download, pay and pray.

alkonaut
7 replies
7h24m

I absolutely do NOT want to download/sideload anything from a third party. You are absolutely correct there. Not even from companies I trust (e.g. I wouldn't want to download the Netflix app from Netflix)

- I DO want apple to spend as much money and effort as they do now on vetting apps.

- I DO realize that means they must grab some money, somwhere.

- I DO NOT want apple to take a cut out of subscriptions for services.

It's as simple as that. There is zero way in hell that apple should have a cut out of subscription services. I should be able to pay any way I want for e.g. podcasts, and Apple should just suck it up and charge $25 from the distributor, once, for reviewing the podcast app.

Basically: Apple needs to just give up their golden egg, run the app store at minium profit, and I hope the EU breaks their kneecaps if they don't swiftly agree to do so.

Arkhaine_kupo
3 replies
6h55m

If the app you downloaded has an update, does the app not need to be revised again? Why would the revision fee not happen with every update?

Would that not mean developers that update more and get better value for their customers are penalised?

Subscription cuts strikes a happy medium, where apple gets paid when the company gets paid, so if they deliver more features they are not penalised but they are also not allowed to update for free forever (potentially adding malicious code without anyone checking due to only being checked the first time they paid).

alkonaut
1 replies
3h11m

Why would the revision fee not happen with every update?

It would. So charge $25 again. So long as they charge what their actual cost is (with a reasonable margin) that's fine. But that's a universe apart from charging 10% of the profits of some streaming service because you "provide the platform".

jeffhuys
0 replies
2h35m

That would actually be pretty nice; devs would maybe not update every day but once a month or something, and have actual changelogs, AND the review queue would be way shorter.

Workaccount2
0 replies
4h31m

Ok, well Apple can keep their model, but they must allow alternate app stores onto iPhones.

If consumers want to pay for Apple's premium services, they can just stick to the default.

If they want stuff cheaper, they can try an app store willing to only make a 10% margin instead of Apple's 40%.

threeseed
2 replies
7h5m

The problem is you have a misunderstanding of what the fee is.

From Apple's perspective it includes the ongoing cost of providing all of the SDKs i.e. CTF.

enragedcacti
0 replies
2h15m

From a user's perspective it wouldn't be a phone worth buying if those SDKs weren't provided. Why do we have to accept Apple's framing that SDKs are a gift bestowed upon developers rather than an essential part of the software ecosystem that users are buying into?

Third party apps can't exist without the SDK, but the iPhone wouldn't be viable without third party apps. Who makes money in this arrangement has nothing to do with what's fair and everything to do with who has more power.

archagon
0 replies
1h54m

Then why isn’t there one on macOS?

I get the feeling that the CTF exists more to dissuade developers from building for alt app stores.

tjpnz
2 replies
7h19m

Where does this 95% come from?

bee_rider
1 replies
5h35m

Derived via the method rectal extrication I suspect.

sem000
0 replies
1h6m

Yes and I will send you my diagramed study.

tikkabhuna
1 replies
8h1m

That should be an informed decision. If users are happy to pay extra to Apple for convenience of use, then they should be aware of what is happening.

If 95%, like you say, are happy to pay extra, then it should be no problem for Apple to allow developers to communicate the Apple fees.

madeofpalk
0 replies
7h33m

If users don't want to go to other websites, then developers should notice they're losing sales and be incentivised to offer a more convenient option!

Maybe over time more integrated options could emergy that's as convenient, offers more features, and could be cheaper. Imagine if there was competition!

socksy
1 replies
7h51m

"This forum" constantly has someone posting this exact take on every single thread on this issue

threeseed
0 replies
6h16m

"This forum" has talked about these issues hundreds of times over the decade since the App Store launched.

There is not a single argument or point that hasn't been made many times over.

stetrain
0 replies
5h38m

If 95% users don't want it, then Apple should be happy to provide it as an option since nobody will use it and it will have no impact on Apple's business, right?

skeaker
0 replies
1h26m

Source for the 95% figure?

quonn
0 replies
8h0m

Your opinion of what users supposedly want is irrelevant. What matters is that the law mandates these options and Apple refuses to comply.

And no - I prefer iOS, for various reasons (such as smooth integration with macOS, better UI), and wanting to download apps from the Apple app store is not the reason.

noitpmeder
0 replies
8h1m

Well that sounds like complete nonsense. As an Apple user id definitely take advantage of cheaper ways to purchase the exact same product.

Furthermore - No one is forcing anyone to click the "get this cheaper here" link ... But I'd bet you'd be surprised how many Apple users would click it if it was there. The user and developer both win in that situation.

malermeister
0 replies
6h56m

It's not about what Apple users want. It's about what the law requires.

madeofpalk
0 replies
7h35m

Why can't you sign up for Netflix on an iPhone?

lxgr
0 replies
2h24m

Maybe so, but I bet more than 5% of Apple users would appreciate the economic effects of a world in which people can go to a random website and save a few bucks.

Competition is good for markets even if you continue to buy from the incumbent.

luuurker
0 replies
2h37m

This forum will never understand is that 95% of Apple users DO NOT want to go to a random website and download to save a few bucks.

Almost everyone uses Google's store on Android. The average person doesn't know what 3rd party stores are, they don't go to websites to make payments. I'm a more advanced user and never had to go to a website and download and app, unless I absolutely wanted to.

Not sure why you think it would be different on iOS.

kaishiro
0 replies
7h56m

Considering the glut of scammy, ad-filled garbage on the official App Store, I'm not convinced we haven't ended up exactly where you claim we haven't. That being said, I do agree with you that the vast majority of users probably don't care about alternative app marketplaces (but for the small majority of us who do, I'll continue to champion the EU's efforts here).

Also, for the love of god open up the Apple Messages API please...

jsnell
0 replies
7h47m

Your rant seems misguided, given you're talking about "downloads". The GP wasn't talking about downloading apps from outside the App Store, it was about Apple's anti-steering rules within the App Store

But in either case, if the user sentiment is as strong as you claim, Apple has nothing to lose in following the laws. The users will continue to demand installs and payments go via the App Store, and developers will have to continue providing that option or lose customers. Why do you feel so threatened by these laws? It sounds like you don't really have the confidence in 95% of the users agreeing with you.

hifromwork
0 replies
7h41m

Please don't generalise. My partner still uses IPhone 7 today, and they are certainly interested in saving a few bucks. There are countries poorer than the US and not every Apple user is rich.

have_faith
0 replies
7h55m

If they don't want to do that even if the choice was available, then Apple has no reason to mandate these paths be hidden?

graemep
0 replies
7h44m

This forum will never understand is that 95% of Apple users DO NOT want to go to a random website and download to save a few bucks

Who said they will download from a random website, or that the only advantage is to save a few bucks?

The advantage might be to get software that is not allowed on the app store, or to use a source that you trust more than Apple, or an otherwise better curated source - I would guess a high proportion of F-Droid users trust the software installed from there or find it easier to get what they want than in the Play Store. Why can someone not similarly improve on Apple's store?

before Apple everything was download, pay and pray.

never had many problems myself.

gbalduzzi
0 replies
7h54m

Ok, fair. Then allow app developers to explain this in the app and provide a link to the external website and let the user decide what they prefer.

The issue is that you can't publish an app unless you hide this information from the user and as a consequence most users aren't even aware that alternatives exists.

Let the user freely decide and you can't charge how much you want for the convenience of your service, even more than 30%, nobody would care.

epolanski
0 replies
6h54m

because before Apple everything was download, pay and pray.

That's complete nonsense. That's not even true on computers, let alone in an Android/iPhone where applications are de facto sandboxed.

Also, none of these changes impact prevents you and the 95% to keep using the app store exclusively.

blackoil
0 replies
3h2m

If it is so clear, so put so many roadblocks. Let there be other stores/payment gateways which no one will use.

ClassyJacket
0 replies
7h46m

If nobody will use it, then what's the harm in offering it?

biztos
2 replies
5h17m

There are apps on the App Store in which the only way to pay is by entering your credit card info in the app. Others that link out to bank processing sites in a web view to do the same. This has been true for at least ten years, and the number is not getting smaller as far as I can tell.

As a user of some of these apps, I have always wondered whether there is some exception clause for, say, retailers of physical goods, utilities, and anything remotely to do with transportation. My anecdata suggests it’s more common in the EU and Asia, but a year and a half ago I was standing by the curb in Sacramento cursing the parking meter app for not taking Apple Pay.

madeofpalk
1 replies
3h40m

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#per...

3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Services: If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many real-time services must use in-app purchase.

3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
biztos
0 replies
3h32m

Thanks, that clears it up I think!

orwin
21 replies
8h19m

Apple currently has three sets of business terms governing its relationship with app developers, including the App Store's steering rules. The Commission preliminarily finds that:

- None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels.

- Under most of the business terms available to app developers, Apple allows steering only through “link-outs”, i.e., app developers can include a link in their app that redirects the customer to a web page where the customer can conclude a contract. The link-out process is subject to several restrictions imposed by Apple that prevent app developers from communicating, promoting offers and concluding contracts through the distribution channel of their choice.

- Whilst Apple can receive a fee for facilitating via the AppStore the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers, the fees charged by Apple go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration. For example, Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app.

[edit] I will add one thing: right now, i'm rich enough that i wouldn't care about paying 30% less if it saves me the hassle of using a new payment processor, and i think this is the case for most people here, or even most people using Apple phones. But 10 years ago when i was scraping by, i had a phone that was given to me (not an iphone, but it could have been), and i would totally do everything i could to save 33% on anything (mostly food tbh). T=Not allowing link out and price discovery is not only anti-market, it's anti-poor.

robertlagrant
20 replies
7h45m

T=Not allowing link out and price discovery is not only anti-market, it's anti-poor.

What shops list their own markup? If I go to a supermarket I don't see what the markup is the shop adds. I just see the price here vs the price there. I did that when I didn't have any money as well. It seems to work.

rahkiin
9 replies
7h36m

I also do not see where else I can buy it, or prices of other shops for the same product. I also do not see products in shop A tell me I should go to shop B instead.

Wasn’t the shop model what they copied?

alkonaut
7 replies
7h29m

Apples AppStore isn't the shop, it's street where all the shops are. They have decided that no consumer walking this street should know which shops exist or what their prices are.

These analogies break down real quick, but the center of the argument is that companies that grow too large can become "the market" and not "one actor on the market".

robertlagrant
6 replies
7h11m

That's what I don't understand: what price can't I discover? Things like: how much Netflix costs, or how much something on Amazon costs, or how much a NYT subscription costs? I'm struggling to think of an example of what you're saying.

madeofpalk
5 replies
6h49m

You cannot sign up for Netlifx on an iPhone, because Netflix either must make 30% less giving that cut to Apple, or charge 30% more.

This is even more egregious when it comes to Spotify, which is unable to compete evenly with Apple Music. I wonder if Apple Music has to give away 30% of it's revenue to a payment processor....

robertlagrant
4 replies
5h56m

Okay, but I can see the price of Netflix and Spotify. Or are the prices different on iPhone? I don't have one, so I'm only going on what you're saying.

madeofpalk
3 replies
5h23m

No, the impact of Apple's rules is that you cannot see the price of Netflix in the Netflix app, because Netflix doesn't want to use Apple's IAP and give them whatever % cut.

If Netflix did offer in-app subscription (through Apple), and charged it at a higher rate to account for Apple's cut, it would be forbidden from telling it's more expensive because Apple takes a cut, or that it's available for cheaper on their website. Apple even forbids Netflix emailing their customer after signup telling them it's cheaper on their website.

robertlagrant
2 replies
4h42m

Okay - but I'm genuinely struggling to see an example. Is the worst symptom of this issue that I'm sent to sign up on an open platform like the Web?

samrus
0 replies
3h31m

No, that's called steering and it would be perfectly fine. But apple doesn't allow that, and that's what the EU's major complaint is about. So the worst case is that you have no competition, which is the definition of anticompetitive

Liquid_Fire
0 replies
4h16m

From my understanding (I also don't have an iPhone), you're not sent anywhere, because Netflix were forbidden from telling you to go sign up on their website. There was just no sign up button, and an implicit assumption that you would somehow figure out that you need to open up netflix.com in the browser and subscribe there.

I think that has changed now for Netflix in particular, but not for some other types of apps?

madeofpalk
0 replies
7h32m

It's hard to draw analogies to the real world. It's like if you bought a dishwasher and Best Buy forced the manufacturer to force the user to buy detergent from their store, and forbid the manufacturer from telling the user they can get cheaper detergent elsewhere.

kvdveer
3 replies
7h8m

When the markup is external, this is quite common: e.g. shipping, taxes, etc.

zeusk
2 replies
6h55m

When was the last time your grocer explicitly listed out the shipping cost of your globalized shopping cart? Did it show shipping of orange concentrate from florida? or grains from Iowa?

poincaredisk
1 replies
5h44m

I think you are intentionally misinterpreting parent. When you buy something online, shipping is almost always a separate item on the bill (unless it's free). Taxes are also clearly specified on the invoice. Food delivery apps and Airbnb take it to the extreme, by charging a relatively small price and then adding surcharges. Uber breaks down price into the driver price, marketplace fee, taxes, and sometimes congestion fees. So yes, breaking down price is common.

zeusk
0 replies
2h35m

They're only showing you last mile delivery fees. Don't mistake for once that your food is grown in the city you live in.

xxs
2 replies
7h30m

You can't compare appstore with other shops, though. It's the only shop that can possible exist, so it faces no competition at any rate by design.

bee_rider
1 replies
5h43m

I thought EU law is already going to allow for alternative app stores on iOS?

zuppy
0 replies
5h17m

the law allows, the implementation that apple took, doesn’t in reality. yes, techinically it is possible, but with the associated cost only some big players can do it. there’s no room for free apps when the store has to pay 50 cents per user after a small threshold.

troupo
0 replies
7h22m

Go to a mall. You'll see shops happily advertising their stuff, directing people to their websites, asking people to download their apps etc.

pjc50
0 replies
6h34m

The model breaks down because there is only one supermarket. Well, at least until the EU mandates alternate app stores without Apple handicapping them.

orwin
0 replies
3h30m

Every shops allow price discovery, and none will charge me if I go in a physical shop to see what a product looks like in real life, then command it on internet. In fact, when I was a student, almost everyone I knew did that, as at that time, internet prices were a lot lower (and we had no money).

At that time I even went in different supermarkets to check foodstuff promos and sometime bought ham in a place, lettuce and mayo in another, and bread at another, on the same day. Not allowing to do that is anti-poor, I'll say it again.

Imagine that some people have only one way to access internet, and it's their phone on public wifi. What Apple is doing should be punished.

endisneigh
19 replies
7h53m

Many years ago I would have said Apple would never leave the EU, but now I’d say it’s firmly in the “possible” territory.

Maybe it’s a win for both parties of Apple leaves the EU, though I’m skeptical any homegrown EU product would have any traction unless they also force Google to divest Android.

I’d love to know how much work it is for Apple to comply and deal with the EU regulatory environment.

Interesting times.

hifromwork
10 replies
7h48m

Why would apple leave the EU? It's a huge market, and I don't think there is a risk of their profit in the EU going negative because of some relatively small concessions. They can keep existing rules for the rest of the world and change them slightly for the EU. Unless they are afraid that other countries will demand the same if they budge?

endisneigh
5 replies
7h47m

China is a huge market and Google left. Anything is possible.

Jensson
2 replies
7h40m

Apple hasn't left China though, why would they leave Europe that has much less regulatory issues?

graemep
0 replies
7h36m

nor have they left Russia despite sanctions (and have not attracted the opprobrium for that that companies like Unilever have)

endisneigh
0 replies
7h30m

I am not saying they will leave, I’m saving it’s for me anyway, no longer inconceivable.

user_7832
0 replies
7h39m

The EU is much closer to the US than China is, however.

troupo
0 replies
7h18m

Google was forced to leave. Partly because their lucrative business of siphoning user data for ads hasn't panned out in China.

Note how Apple doesn't leave China despite significantly stricter regulation than Google faced,

vsl
3 replies
7h5m

It's a huge market

Approximately 7% of Apple's worldwide revenue: https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/eu_share_of_apples_revenu...

That's hardly "huge" especially when weighted against DMA's fines up to 10-20% of worldwide revenue plus the uncertainty risk of interpreting DMA.

jsnell
0 replies
6h34m

7% of App Store revenue. Not all their revenue.

indoordin0saur
0 replies
10m

That's amazingly low given that Europe has such a large portion of the world's wealthy consumers. Even then, I think it'd be a huge risk to Apple if they created the perfect conditions for the might of the Polish/German/Ukrainian/Dutch developers to create their own Apple competitor.

sloowm
0 replies
6h32m

This argument only makes sense if you think of Apple as an entity that has a nationality. It's an internationally traded company that is therefore owned by international money. The stars would have to align in a very special way for 50% of the shareholders to agree that it's to Apple's strategic benefit to leave the EU.

It also underestimates the costs of leaving the EU or any country. In a lot of cases there are laws against leaving a countries market. I doubt the shareholders want Apple to go into such a fight.

Any extra work it requires to comply can be offset by price increases if Apple needs to recoup those losses.

rolandboon
0 replies
7h11m

In the short term that would impact their stock price way too much; I don't think they would pull that trigger.

In the long term this stance will become untenable if other regions come to the same conclusions. Anti-competition investigations against Apple are currently running in:

- US (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple...)

- UK (https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-apple-appsto...)

- Japan (https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/bc2d7f45d456-japa...)

Australia (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/new-competition-laws-n...) and India (https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-amazon-apple-lobby...) will follow soon.

pjmlp
0 replies
7h16m

Sure, and then they can leave Japan and India next, as well.

hu3
0 replies
7h44m

If Apple left EU, in the long run it would be very damaging to their market worldwide because of network effects.

Suddenly other governments (and people) would have a very real exhibit that life just goes on and that one company is not as important as previously thought.

chipweinberger
0 replies
7h51m

Might not be homegrown.

Anyone could come in.

Would be a nice enticement too.

bogwog
0 replies
2h25m

Many years ago I would have said Apple would never leave the EU, but now I’d say it’s firmly in the “possible” territory.

I don't even think that Steve Jobs would be able to pull that one off.

blackoil
0 replies
2h49m

That would be very very stupid. Their marketshare is already going down in China. Soon RoW will bring in similar laws and Apple will sell only in Texas and Florida.

andersa
0 replies
7h48m

Apple has invested more work into malicious non-compliance than it would have taken to simply do it right the first time.

mirzap
16 replies
6h48m

The EU is too soft with Apple. Apple has consistently shown harmful intentions towards users, and it needs to change. They have had numerous opportunities to change but have refused to do so. I'm a big fan of Apple products, but I cannot accept the fact that I cannot install apps on my device from any source I want. Even if I develop my own app, I cannot install it on my iPhone. Why is the iPhone different from the Mac? It should be just as easy to install an app on the iPhone, simply download it and you're done, or drag and drop it from the desktop.

I hope the EU sets a precedent once and for all with a maximum fine (10% of global revenue).

ssijak
6 replies
6h19m

"10% of global revenue" - What does EU have to do with GLOBAL revenue? Where is the logic in that.

lucianbr
2 replies
5h39m

The logic is obvious, that is what it takes for these kind of companies to feel the fine. 20 million dollars is nothing to them.

This is easy to see if you want to. It's been discussed over and over. "I don't understand this thing that I refuse to understand!" is a really useless comment.

ssijak
1 replies
3h19m

Still makes 0 sense. 20% of global revenue is much much more than 20mils. apple had 380 billion in revenue last year. so you want to fine them 76 billion? also, "its nothing to them" is not an argument.

margana
0 replies
3h4m

They have the opportunity to stop breaking the law. If they don't choose to do that, they face punitive damages. It has never been unusual for punitive damages to exceed the proceeds gained from breaking the law. That's why they're called punitive.

This isn't a situation where they do something unknowingly and then face some major consequences. This is a situation where they break the law, they're told to stop, they don't stop, they're told to stop again, they still don't stop. After that, rinse and repeat a few more times. 20% of global revenue sounds perfectly fair for this kind of stupidity.

alt227
0 replies
4h35m

It is very easy for these companies to shift money around their books to look like none of it came from a certain country.

Vespasian
0 replies
5h48m

1. The logic in that is to prevent Apple from trying any shenenigans where "technically" Apple Europe has 10€ revenue and can continue to dodge regulations. It's simply recognizing that megacorps exist and will absolutely try to play the system. Sure, you could be develop a more complex method but why? Fines are meant as a determent and should hurt.

2. The fines would of course be enforced against the European Entity.

3. If they stick to the regulation there is no need to pay any fines. Taxes are not calculated this way.

4. There is an implicit "up to" whenever EU fines are stated.

KolmogorovComp
0 replies
6h14m

Why does the USA have extrajudicial power, why does China force technological transfers to access its market?

In international laws there is no logic, it’s only about being strong enough to enforce your rules.

xandrius
5 replies
6h36m

To be fair, if you develop the app yourself you can install it on your iPhone without any problem, you connect your phone and install it through Xcode.

acheong08
1 replies
5h17m

That still requires a MacBook. It makes it almost impossible for open source developers to make applications for IOS

xandrius
0 replies
4h35m

Open source != owning a mac

I agree that the hardware requirement is bullshit and mostly unnecessary.

MilaM
1 replies
5h49m

True, but you have to rebuild the app every six or seven days, because it stops working. Unless you shell out for the paid developer account I think. Then your apps won't expire.

My guess is that Apple thinks this route could be used to circumvent the App Store.

lolinder
0 replies
4h52m

Then your apps won't expire.

Correction: then your apps will last a year before they expire. You'll still need to reinstall yearly.

alt227
0 replies
4h38m

Xcode only works on a Mac, and to do it you need to be registered in the Apple developer program.

So if you want to develop an app for iPhone you can do it no problem, as long as you buy another apple device to code it on, pay Apple the subscription fee to join the developer program, and then you can install it on your Apple phone.

bartekpacia
2 replies
6h33m

I share the same exact sentiment.

I hope they get hit hard.

robertfall
1 replies
4h2m

I hope that Apple pulls out of the EU. They're less than 10% of their global revenue. If the fines are higher than their profits why on earth would they stay?

blackoil
0 replies
2h32m

Where are you getting 10%. It is close to 25% for fy23.

igammarays
12 replies
6h48m

While I think Apple's rules are ridiculous, it is pretty standard in the industry. AirBnB doesn't allow hosts to accept cash or arrange alternative payment. Amazon doesn't allow suppliers to offer direct sales to potential customers. Even Visa and Mastercard officially don't allow merchants to offer discounts for cash transactions (although many do anyway). Etc, etc. I think this should be a more general rule, no "platform" or "aggregator" should be allowed to prevent the free communication of users of their platform from arranging their deal elsewhere. Just because they met on the platform doesn't give the right to the platform to strong-arm their users into using them. The platform must compete with alternative payment methods on its own merits, such as convenience, security, etc., not by forcing people to use them just because they happen to be the matchmaker. Because this policy cements monopolies and rewards the largest incumbents.

blackoil
3 replies
3h5m

Airbnb is one of the many players and they don't have any practical sized lockin over consumer or vendors. While Apple is dominant force with complete lockin over all iPhone users.

alt227
2 replies
2h49m

Exactly, If I choose to advertise my property on AirBnB, that doesnt mean I cant also let me my mates stay round for free, or rent it out to other people privately if I want to.

tpmoney
1 replies
2h33m

And if you sell your software or services on the App Store, that doesn’t mean you can’t give it away for free to your buddies or sell it somewhere else.

AlotOfReading
0 replies
1h5m

How else do you give it away free? The CTF applies to anyone with business revenue who meets the install requirements, even if you're not charging for that specific app. Development apps are time limited by Apple's terms.

Furthermore, all of the limits exist solely at Apple's discretion. Apple is essentially being benevolent, not saying they have no claim to the transactions.

xandrius
1 replies
6h40m

Gotta start somewhere, going for the Trillion dollar behemoth is a good first step, in my opinion.

And let's not forget that this standard is a de facto standard, not a regulatory one. Just because things have been done in this way, it doesn't mean they should remain like this forever.

The EU is one of the few parties which can actually bring some change.

KerrAvon
0 replies
3h16m

Then it should do so broadly and inclusive of actual technical expertise. It’s nitpicking fluff because Epic and Spotify are mad, and not addressing root causes.

It’s easy (and often deserved) to dunk on the trillion-dollar corporation. And regulation is good, actually. But the DMA isn’t good regulation.

tpmoney
0 replies
2h35m

On the other hand a mechanism of a number of online market place scams is to gain customers trading on the “security” (such as it is) of the market place, and then directing the customer out of the market place. Everyone (should) know that any eBay seller that tries to get you to complete the auction outside of eBay is likely to be a scam. Likewise I would hope anyone would be leery of placing an order on Amazon and having a seller contact you asking you to cancel that order and buy it cheaper on some other website. Reputation matters for consumers, and legitimate sellers rely on the market place’s good reputation to help smooth the sales process. Scammers do too, but their goal is to get you out of the market place ASAP where the rules and regulations are harder to get enforced. Companies like Apple and eBay have a strong incentive to have a trustable pipeline and mandate sellers to use it because even though they’re not the ones perpetuating the scam, being known as a market place where scammers hang out is damaging. Consider this, between the Apple Store, eBay and Craigslist, what order would you place those market places if ranking your level of trust for not getting scammed when providing your payment details for a recurring subscription to a random seller?

Or put another way, even though it’s free and plenty of smaller companies do, Netflix doesn’t make posts of Craigslist advertising their services. There’s obviously many reasons for that, but at least part of it I’m sure is no one should trust a random link in a Craigslist post to a Netflix sign up site.

indoordin0saur
0 replies
19m

The move is to create a closed-market and then collect rent. If your serfs don't like the terms, well, they can't really leave because of the collective action problem of buyers and sellers not being able to coordinate a move to a new platform.

crowcroft
0 replies
1h28m

The difference (or at least what would be argued as a difference) is that you have no other choice with Apple (Amazon maybe in a similar situation).

If I didn't like AirBNB I could use VRBO/whatever else, or I could use both even.

I can understand Apple's cut for app developers who solely create apps and distribute them through Apple.

Where it becomes a problem is a large number of apps are just a way for the iPhone to connect to a larger product (Spotify, Basecamp, most SaaS companies), and I don't know why Apple should feel entitled to own the relationship with a businesses customers because they also use an iPhone when it's an ancillary part of the product.

benced
0 replies
1h1m

I mostly agree but I think iOS/Android/Windows (and maybe MacOS) are so important to our economy that they represent a difference in kind and should be regulated more stringently. I don't really care if vacation rentals are more expensive or worse than they should be, I do care if the software that mediates our lives is.

ak217
0 replies
4h15m

It's not really standard and I think the comparisons don't quite work. In Airbnb's case, Apple's policy is comparable to forbidding hosts from offering extra services (not related to lodging) to users off-platform once they begin their stay. In Amazon's case, it's like if Amazon banned manufacturers from including coupons for future direct purchases in the product packaging. In Visa and Mastercard's case, it's like banning merchants from mentioning other payment methods at all.

I think it's abuse and I agree it should be forbidden as a class of behaviors. I would love to see Apple fined enough to deter anyone from trying what they did with Epic ever again.

WrongAssumption
0 replies
49m

Visa and Mastercard do very explicitly allow cash discounts.

https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/global/support-legal/d...

What they didn’t allow previously was adding a surcharge to credit transactions. But regulation forced them to allow that as well. So not the best example overall.

gargs
11 replies
7h50m

Surely, Apple will respond by artificially hampering one or more of their products in the EU and hence take away even the slightest reason to upgrade hardware in the name of Apple Intelligence.

Customers need a company that acts and reasons like an adult.

aikinai
9 replies
7h24m

You’re obviously insinuating that they are delaying features in the EU just to be petty, but the ostensible reason is plenty compelling on its own.

The EU regulations will require them to do insane amounts of custom work building a public API for Apple Intelligence. Imagine how hard it will be to make that interface secure, private, not terrible for users.

The other features like mirroring are much simpler, but still, is it worth making a public interface and taking the security and privacy risks just to offer the feature in the EU?

Every new feature in the EU is now a massive liability, so of course they’re going to be more cautious what they release.

threeseed
4 replies
6h58m

The idea that any third party app could (a) record my screen 24/7 in the background or (b) have full access to all of the data on my phone would be beyond unacceptable.

Everyone rightly criticised Microsoft for providing such a capability and they would do the same with Apple as well.

EU would be insane to push Apple on this.

ginko
3 replies
5h43m

The idea that any third party app could (a) record my screen 24/7 in the background or (b) have full access to all of the data on my phone would be beyond unacceptable.

Such an app would be breaking GDPR.

alt227
2 replies
4h4m

Such an app would be breaking GDPR.

Obviously not

https://www.rewind.ai/

GDPR has no bearing on what apps can and cant do, as long as they ask you permission for their use of personal data first.

ginko
1 replies
2h44m

So don't give permission? (or don't install the app in the first place) I thought this was about malicious apps that collected private data behind your back.

alt227
0 replies
9m

I thought this was about malicious apps that collected private data behind your back

No, where did you get that idea from?

alt227
3 replies
4h6m

The EU regulations will require them to do insane amounts of custom work building a public API

Apple are the biggest company in the world. If they wanted they could hire 1000 developers to throw at this, and it wouldnt even dent a single percent of their profit.

Apple could very easily do this if they wanted to, heck they could do absolutely anything they want with their money and clout, but they dont.

aikinai
2 replies
3h48m

You can’t do anything you want just by adding developers. If it were that easy, the entire software industry would look completely different. And that’s not even accounting for the inevitable system-wide repercussions of the work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

alt227
1 replies
3h45m

Im aware of the man month, and Im aware that you cant just throw any deverlopers at any coding problem.

However I believe Apple easily has the money, developers, and ability to do this if they wanted. Look at all the other amazing things they do, anyone who argues this is hard for them is delusional IMO.

sashank_1509
0 replies
1h0m

There’s a difference between working to build an amazing product that wows people, and working to fulfill mind numbing regulations created by people who couldn’t run a coffee shop. One is soul enriching, another is soul crushing. If Apple wants to torture its developers into doing soul numbing, slow moving work, I guess they can but the default response would be to not do that and give their developers more meaningful tasks that leaves them and Apple happy.

llm_nerd
0 replies
3h43m

The notion that Apple is punishing one of the largest markets on the planet by disincentivizing them from upgrading to the next generation of hardware seems like something you didn't really think through. The AI thing will be the #1 selling point of the 16 and onwards, and you can be assured that Apple wants it in the EU.

Apple, as with most mega-cos, needs to be reigned in and corralled by the governments of the world. But let's be real that the EU in some of their actions has grossly overreached and offered up impractical demands, while strangely targeting only American companies.

kingsleyopara
10 replies
4h12m

I don't understand why so many people think that if Apple didn't take a percentage cut of sales, prices would go down. Products are typically priced at what customers are willing to pay, which likely wouldn't change. The developer would simply earn more. The only real benefit to customers might be the existence of some apps with extremely thin margins that wouldn't be viable otherwise. As a developer, I naturally approve this though.

gostsamo
5 replies
4h5m

Because there are price sensitive users and many services would prefer to share those 30% with them instead of losing the business. Because even if the developer gets the money, they will invest them in their product instead of them going to Apple. Because even if they don't invest them, more money on the market will incentivize more developers who will create competition. Because even nothing changes, this means more money around the world instead of being concentrated in the Apple shareholders who will use them to create even more locked gardens.

kingsleyopara
3 replies
3h51m

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. If a product is already priced optimally, lowering the price to capture price-sensitive users would reduce overall revenue, right? Profitable developers set prices based on what the market will bear, not the cost structure. Also, I'm not sure all developers would reinvest additional earnings into their products rather than just increase profit margins or divert funds elsewhere. I agree on the economic redistribution point though.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan
0 replies
3h25m

I'm not sure all developers would reinvest additional earnings into their products rather than just increase profit margins or divert funds elsewhere

A mega corporation like Apple is much less likely to do this than a smaller company, though. Apple's quarterly dividend is literally the company communicating that they make so much money they can't think of anything better to do with it than just giving it away to the investors.

lopis
0 replies
3h3m

Companies would sure not reduce the price by 30%, but perhaps 10%. This would mean their revenue increases, and the price conscious user saves money as well. I doubt any users would opt for not using the apple store if the price wasn't significantly lower.

gostsamo
0 replies
3h46m

The current optimal price is set with the extra cost of Apple rentiering included on the production side. Minus that cost, the developer might find another optimum.

m3kw9
0 replies
3h1m

You pay Apple because they provide infrastructure to which you distribute your apps. Is like taxes so your country provide infrastructure etc, it may not be 100% efficient use but these things aren’t free

rrrrrrrrrrrryan
0 replies
3h32m

Presumably the quality of the apps would get a bit better as well.

If you've got 10 overworked employees and you suddenly make 10-30% more money, you can hire another one or two people and the business runs better.

lxgr
0 replies
2h22m

the existence of some apps with extremely thin margins that wouldn't be viable otherwise

Isn't that great for me as a customer, though?

And I wouldn't exactly call 30% + x an extremely thin margin!

kllrnohj
0 replies
2h42m

I don't understand why so many people think that if Apple didn't take a percentage cut of sales, prices would go down. Products are typically priced at what customers are willing to pay, which likely wouldn't change.

You can trivially find countless counter examples where prices are higher only on the app store like netflix[1], spotify, etc.. subscriptions. They don't make their web & Android users pay more just to cover for iOS users, why would they? That makes no sense. So of course the price would drop if they were allowed to steer as they already sell it at the lower price on the website, they just aren't being allowed to tell iOS users that.

And that is what Apple is getting hit for here. Not the 30% fee, but the rules forbidding developers from telling the user about alternative sign ups or purchasing locations.

1: well before Apple cut a special deal for Netflix anyway

freeAgent
0 replies
2h11m

Competitive pricing doesn't work when you're in a monopoly/monopsony scenario, which is the case with Apple's App Store.

sccxy
6 replies
7h45m

I guess reasonable fine for this breach is 30% of revenue in EU just like in the app store.

NayamAmarshe
3 replies
6h8m

Don't forget the $99 per app.

treeFall
1 replies
4h54m

Even if you don't want an app, you have to pay $99 for the privilege of a "Login with Apple" button on your website.

alt227
0 replies
4h3m

Or even 'Pay with Apple Pay' on your website.

m3kw9
0 replies
4h59m

wrong, its 99 per developer

moffkalast
0 replies
7h32m

Maybe they ought to fine Apple 50 cents per installed app from their App Store, since apparently they consider that perfectly fine and reasonable.

The_Colonel
0 replies
3h47m

The fine is up to 10% of global revenue, but that's not far from the 30% of revenue from EU.

EMIRELADERO
4 replies
8h6m

Here's some context which a lot of people, including most news media, seem to have missed:

The reason Apple is still playing games with the EC is that they're waiting on an EU Court's ruling[1] on whether Article 6 (7), the provision that mandates free of charge iOS APIs for all developers, is "constitutional" within the EU framework itself.

Most people who call out the Core Technology Fee use that provision as one of their main arguments, and it's one of their strongest, because the "free of charge" language throws away the general idea that the law doesn't want to interfere with Apple's monetization strategies. Since Apple could very well have chosen to monetize certain local API access in the past, the fact that this provision put a stop to that effectively nullifies Apple's argument (to the courts) that the law could never have meant to actually control how they make money.

[1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BR...

graemep
3 replies
7h38m

The problem is that apple is going to continue malicious compliance while the EU is trying to be reasonable: "the EU hopes ongoing dialogue will lead to compliance rather than sanctions."

musictubes
2 replies
2h43m

What is malicious compliance? Apple is either in compliance or it isn’t. If it is then malicious compliance basically boils down to, “No, not like that!” If a company is in compliance to the law and you don’t like the outcome the problem isn’t the company it is the law.

The EU thinks Apple is not in compliance and Apple thinks it is. The court will decide which side is correct. If it turns out that Apple is in the right they will have complied with the law. Maliciousness is a concept for message boards not legal teams.

nomel
0 replies
39m

Could anyone help me understand why this was flagged dead? Is it incorrect somehow? This is a discussion around legality, so it makes sense to keep the discussion in that context.

Apple being able to do something undesirable, in the perspective in the intent of the law, is either a "loophole" in the law, or the law doesn't actually accomplish what it was made to. Both are problems with the law. This isn't an Apple thing as much as a "anyone who will benefit in complying minimally will comply minimally". Apple today, whomever else tomorrow.

mettamage
0 replies
34m

If a company is in compliance to the law and you don’t like the outcome the problem isn’t the company it is the law.

The law isn’t the only thing that upholds a cohesive society that is nice to live in. At the very least, culture plays its own part as well. There are probably many more things

If I only cared about being legal, I would behave very differently. Just think about how far a citizen could go if they would live in full malicious compliance. One would be a nightmare to others

numair
3 replies
8h6m

This is ridiculous. The EU has a complete axe to grind against Apple, for reasons that I believe border on corruption (if not, veer completely into it). Meanwhile, Meta has a near-monopoly on social networking in the Western world and is subject to a slap on the wrist at best.

Helle Thorning-Schmidt, one of the best friends of the current EU Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, is currently on Meta's payroll. For this reason alone, the current EU Competition Commissioner should recuse herself from being involved in this role. There are other reasons, including direct conversations I have had with co-founders of Meta regarding EU commissioners, that cause me to have very little faith in these people to act fairly, or to do little other than carry out Meta's very long agenda to be able to ride on top of Apple's platform and deliver their own App Store with their own currency (remember Facebook Credits, anyone?) and completely replace iMessage etc for people who live within the mass-scale dystopia that is the Facebook-Instagram-WhatsApp Industrial Complex.

Meta is a total monopoly that causes daily harm to society, and yet this is what the EU finds itself obsessed with. These people should be ashamed of themselves. And, they should release the records of every meeting and every communication they have with Meta and its various lobbyists, and the children/spouses of these people (because they love using the family connection to avoid scrutiny, as evidenced by their hiring of various congresspeople's children in roles that make no sense).

Mashimo
0 replies
7h49m

The press release for this also mentions they are investigating Meta.

retskrad
2 replies
3h19m

What makes Apple such a unique company beloved by billions of people and such a valuable company for investors is because there’s no other company like Apple. It’s the only company that has managed to be a successful software AND hardware company, it has 3 extremely popular operating systems (iOS, ipadOS, MacOS) and the only company that is vertically integrated from top down. Wait it gets better. There are no laws in the books that says what Apple is doing is illegal. Apple’s culture might be Steve Jobs’ greatest product.

blackoil
0 replies
3h14m

There are no laws in the books that says what Apple is doing is illegal.

Ummm. The whole discussion is that allegedly Apple is not compliant with DMA.

Rohansi
0 replies
2h52m

I wouldn't consider iPadOS different from iOS. They realistically share 99% or more of their code with each other and just lock down features because of hardware/form factor differences. You also left out watchOS which is based on iOS.

epolanski
2 replies
6h57m

Apple keeps half assing its compliance in EU, thinking their malicious compliance will fly.

They want to learn it won't work through their wallets.

llm_nerd
1 replies
3h46m

It's fairly standard corporate behaviour, and ultimately it pays off handsomely for Apple. They slow walked implementing a solution to prior censure, and then provided a solution that is laughable, but it starts the whole process again. Now Apple has a year to get some sort of real solution in. During the intervening periods they will have made billions they wouldn't have if they actually implemented a good faith, good intentions response the first time around.

blackoil
0 replies
2h57m

Assuming EU won't slap a $30B fine. this approach didn't work very well for MS.

oblio
0 replies
2h55m

That was quick.

m3kw9
0 replies
5h0m

Apple's services in the app store(in app purchase system, refunds, API's, app store distribution infrastructure) is indisputly useful and deserved to be paid, however, it could be time to relax the fee circumventing rules since they are so big and has a target on their backs now.

classified
0 replies
7h40m

So when do we address the elephant in the room and designate Apple a Criminal Enterprise™?

ang_cire
0 replies
2h18m

I'm excited to see where this goes. Whether you agree or disagree with Apple, them losing (or even just lessening) their monopoly status would make room for new and upcoming businesses. New apps, new app stores, etc etc. Disruption may not always turn out better in the end, but if the status quo is not good, it's often worth the risk.

"Move fast and break stuff" is very divisive, because of course 'stuff' could include optimal stuff, people, the environment, etc.

"Move fast and break monopolies" on the other hand, should, as a forum for startup aspirants, be pretty easy to agree on.