[HN Gopher] Apple found in breach of EU competition rules
___________________________________________________________________
Apple found in breach of EU competition rules
Author : malermeister
Score : 602 points
Date : 2024-06-24 09:10 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| martijnarts wrote:
| Here's the actual EC press release:
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
|
| It's very readable!
| input_sh wrote:
| And it's been submitted, making this a dupe:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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.
| stoperaticless wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| nickserv wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Your way of thinking advocates for no accountability by
| employees. The company did it?
| nickserv wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| LocalH wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| thegiogi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It's not that a company is a person. It's that it's
| multiple people, some of whom make decisions.
| lxgr wrote:
| Exactly, and groups of people behave differently from a
| single person in many important ways.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I agree! That's why I didn't say "are culpable
| differently" but "behave differently".
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| One of HN's biggest intellectual blind spots is mistaking
| explanation with justification. Looks like your comment
| was caught up in that.
| lxgr wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Did the US attack China over all the regulations Apple
| and Google have to fall in line with to be compliant over
| there?
| adolph wrote:
| The US might have less of a leg to stand on vis-a-vis
| Bytedance absent China's examples of how to do it.
| latexr wrote:
| The US has filed an antitrust case against Apple, which
| pretty much denies this whole argument.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/24107581/doj-v-apple-antitrust-
| mono...
| Sakos wrote:
| 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?
| justinclift wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| According to Apple's CFO [1] it's more like 7%, at least
| for the app-store, but it's hard to see how that wouldn't
| correlate to overall profits just as it does elsewhere.
| The regions are ... creatively named.
|
| [1] https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/more_on_the_eus_ma
| rket_mi...
| haileys wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| So, is that good or bad in your opinion?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > 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.
| nickserv wrote:
| Yes it's called a monopoly and this is precisely what the EU
| is trying to avoid.
| xxs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Exactly, the rules are meant to prevent monopolies from
| forming in the first place.
| Jensson wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| blackoil wrote:
| 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.
| samrus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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, dFu i, 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.
| hdhshdhshdjd wrote:
| 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.
| NekkoDroid wrote:
| > excluding [...] Booking.
|
| ????????????????????????
|
| https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-
| designat...
| hdhshdhshdjd wrote:
| Wow, had not seen that development. Would love to know
| how the Dutch lost that fight. Thanks for the updated
| info.
| amelius wrote:
| It's more than monopoly. It's monopoly combined with strong
| lock-in.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That's actually a great comparison.
| malermeister wrote:
| The core raison d'etre for the EU is open markets. They'll do
| a lot to keep their fundamental core principle.
| izolate wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Open markets != unregulated markets.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Why the homeless qualifier?
| samrus wrote:
| 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?
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| > 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.
| ankit219 wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > 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.
| IsTom wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Yea, but that's not so true for the DMA. They're only
| targeting foreign companies using it.
| martimarkov wrote:
| Any evidence for this? Which big domestic company is a
| gatekeeper and not being targeted by the EU?
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| buzer wrote:
| Initially all companies that were defined as gatekeepers
| under DMA were foreign, but on 13.5.2024 Booking.com was
| designated as one as well. They are a Dutch company.
| xandrius wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If Apple gets to have an nefarious agenda, then the EU
| may have one as well.
| xandrius wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| izacus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Who did you vote for in the EU? When were those
| elections?
| malermeister wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The EU parliament has a quite limited role. That's not
| the center of EU power.
| malermeister wrote:
| Sure. But every institution is elected one way or
| another.
| izacus wrote:
| Just last week was one of them.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > 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.
| SSLy wrote:
| forget not the stick is also levied towards domestic to EU
| companies. starting with Booking.com
| naravara wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _> 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?
| sensanaty wrote:
| How is Spotify a gatekeeper? There's iTunes, Deezer,
| YouTube Music, Tidal and many, many, _many_ other music
| providers.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| 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.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| 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.
| pjmlp wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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?
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > While selling less devices than their biggest
| competitor
|
| That doesn't matter that much (when taking about app
| developers) compared to how much money they are spending.
| A single iPhone user in the US and other rich countries
| is worth a dozen of Android users in India/African
| countries etc.
|
| Also even if not literally a monopoly they can
| effectively behave like a monopoly and abuse their
| position because no tech company targeting consumers can
| afford to not have an iOS app.
|
| > 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.
|
| Not what I meant and not how it works. I'm using an
| iPhone in-spite of their abusive practices and
| restrictions because their other features/advantages
| compared to Android outweigh that in my case. It's
| basically a shit sandwich...
|
| > why Apple users are so much more willing to spend money
| on software than users of other platforms
|
| Because they have more money?
|
| > How much money can an independent or boutique developer
| earn from Linux or Windows users, compared to Apple
| users?
|
| Yes, that exactly what I'm saying. Apple won (clearly
| because of the merits of their products) and now they can
| squeeze developers and consumers to a very high degree
| without any negative consequences. That's how monopolies
| (of course it's scale, Apple is not literally a monopoly,
| for that matter neither was Standard Oil back in 1906,
| they had a comparable market share to Apple these days)
| work regardless of how exactly they became one, they get
| to keep all the market surplus that would go to consumers
| in a more competitive market.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > Because they have more money?
|
| I think this quote illustrates well your perspective and
| the general perspective of hackers here. Apple users
| spend more on software because they're just so dumb and
| don't know how to compile their apps and set up a self-
| hosted solution.
|
| I can only speak for myself, but I'm very happy to spend
| money on quality software that I need to solve real world
| problems, instead of suffering with low-quality FOSS or
| ad supported software just to save a few bucks. I prefer
| saving my headache instead, so that I can tinker because
| I choose to, not because I have to. I think most non-
| enterprise software customers think the same way. They
| want something to solve their needs and are fine to pay a
| fair price for that. So they buy Apple products and later
| iOS/MacOS software.
|
| If other tech companies cared at all about their product
| and their customers, they would do the same as Apple. But
| it's easier to sell to enterprise clients and spy on free
| users to sell ads instead.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > I think this quote illustrates > Apple users spend more
| on software because they're just so dumb and don't know
| how to compile their apps and set up a self-hosted
| solution
|
| Never meant anything even remotely close to that. Apple
| users tend to have higher incomes and therefore can
| afford to spend much more than average (globally) Android
| users. I see absolutely nothing wrong about people
| spending money on quality software (the opposite really
| and I entirely agree with your point about ad supported
| and OS consumer software).
|
| > they would do the same as Apple
|
| Well yeah, arguably that was one of the main reasons
| behind their success. However I don't see how do these
| things contradict each other, Apple can continue
| producing great products while being less abusive towards
| developers who have much more limited bargaining power.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| My apologies for reading something into your words that
| wasn't there. It just sounded so dismissive to say that
| they spend more money because they have more money, which
| is an attitude I've often heard, and which isn't true.
|
| Most Android/Windows/Linux users in the developed world
| (and they are billions) spend less on software than
| iOS/MacOS users, even though they can well afford it.
| Small time developers on those platforms are left to beg
| for donations (that never come), or bundle their software
| with ads and spyware that some big company pays them for.
| If they want to make a living on their work.
|
| Developers serving Apple platforms are as far as I know
| better off reimbursement-wise than developers serving
| other platforms. Apple takes their cut, but until
| somebody voluntarily offers developers something better I
| think it's misguided to go against Apple.
|
| People say that Microsoft got hit with these kind of
| lawsuits in the 90s, but as far as I remember, they were
| threatening PC hardware vendors if they offered
| competitor's software - which is clearly an anti-
| competitive measure. Not a reply to you, just a general
| comparison.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| No, most people still do not know about how onerous the
| App Store rules are.
| talldayo wrote:
| Nor how dangerous first-party services like iMessage
| still are, for zero-click exploits like Pegasus. The
| average iPhone user knows almost nothing about their
| device outside of what Apple directly markets to them as
| true.
| detourdog wrote:
| Do you mean they don't wan the public to know that they
| take 30% of sales?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| Or perhaps that prices are 43% higher as a result of
| Apple taking their cut.
| rekoil wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| troupo wrote:
| > 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.
| szundi wrote:
| Laws? Lol. Like bigger part of the world cares.
| cynix wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Laws. Existing laws prevent developers from doing that.
|
| Whose laws? The US's laws? Many app developers aren't in
| the US.
| naravara wrote:
| > 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.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| > paying the payment processing fees
|
| Was that ever an option? I thought you always had to pay
| 30% when selling digital goods
| troupo wrote:
| 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%.
| almostnormal wrote:
| > 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...
| alt227 wrote:
| > https://www.imore.com/apple/apple-removes-scam-bitcoin-
| walle...
|
| Wow thats really worrying, and all these people in here
| saying they love using Apple products becasue it keeps
| them safe.
| martimarkov wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I just wonder why it matters to you.
| alt227 wrote:
| Why does any of it matter to anyone? We're all just
| shooting the breeze with opinions on a public forum.
| dtech wrote:
| 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.
| ffgjgf1 wrote:
| 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?)
| jdmichal wrote:
| 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.
| viraptor wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| alt227 wrote:
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| 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.
| toast0 wrote:
| 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)
| naravara wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bogwog wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bogwog wrote:
| Not for music, video streaming, games, etc. There are
| limits to the kinds of experiences that can be built
| through a web browser (especially Safari).
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Feels like a solution to an American problem, cancelling
| things isn't much of a problem in EU.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > As a user I really like the fact that Apple is the only
| one with my payment informations.
|
| Apple pay provides the exactly same functionality without
| the lock in. Same with Google pay and even Samsung.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > 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)
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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
| happymellon wrote:
| > 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...
| stale2002 wrote:
| > 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!
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| Apple, being part of a duopoly, should not have that
| power. That's all. I don't care about protecting their
| business or whatever the fuck else.
| amelius wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| vundercind wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > "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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| willseth wrote:
| > "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.
| araes wrote:
| 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.
| tomxor wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| AppStore is not Target. At best it's a mall.
| thayne wrote:
| > 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.
| isodev wrote:
| 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.
| cageface wrote:
| 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.
| strongpigeon wrote:
| They also implicitly prevent businesses where the margins are
| less than 30% unless it relies on ads.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| What's stopping them from doing it now then?
| luyu_wu wrote:
| They do (or did for some time).
| knallfrosch wrote:
| 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.
| mrbigbob wrote:
| 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.
| grishka wrote:
| 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.
| mgrandl wrote:
| Yes because developers don't want to pay $100 to then go
| through a super annoying notarization process to distribute
| their FOSS app.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| MacOS also isn't connected to a cellular network.
| grishka wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| * 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Said customers who care about privacy would therefore
| continue to use the App Store.
| detourdog wrote:
| Why should Apple divert resources creating a secondary
| environment?
| asadotzler wrote:
| Because it's the law in a region Apple wants to do
| business. Simple.
| slashdave wrote:
| Except important products will be pulled from the App
| Store because they will become exclusives in 3rd party
| stores.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| 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.
| yxhuvud wrote:
| 3rd party app stores will still be subject to GDPR, which
| apply to all European customers, so calling it a wild west
| is a weird claim.
| seventyone wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| If customers being informed about your business practices
| will result in harm to shareholder value, you've got a
| problem.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| toasterlovin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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"_
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Sorry, but you just have no idea how valuable Amazon is
| at enabling customers to discover that your product even
| exists. 100% of the customers who have ever bought from
| our website have discovered us on Amazon. We know this
| because we don't do any advertising outside of Amazon.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| 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.
| petre wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > 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.
|
| So they are using most favoured nation deals? Whether you
| believe they have a good reason for it or not (I don't
| think they do) doesn't make it any less anti-competitive
|
| > It's their business, which they've built over decades
| of immense investment and effort.
|
| I don't care how much money and effort it takes. That's
| their problem, not the customers'.
|
| They have also built it up by exploiting their workers,
| creating inferior knockoffs and then kicking the original
| off the platform, taking as much money from suppliers as
| possible, and introducing paid placements so that vendors
| need to advertise to show up even when searched for by
| name.
|
| > 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.
|
| Perhaps that might have something to do with all of
| Amazon's best efforts to exert ever more control over
| suppliers. Or leveraging their success in other areas
| (looking at you AWS) to do things that would not be
| profitable otherwise in order to eliminate competition
| (Diapers.com anyone?).
| kevingadd wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > "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.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| So what? All large retailers do this. They're called
| house brands. And they're actually beneficial to
| customers, since there's a well understood quality floor.
| If your product can't compete with a house brand, then
| your product isn't bringing any value to the customer or
| the marketplace.
|
| I say this as an Amazon seller that competes with Amazon
| Basics.
| tikkabhuna wrote:
| > 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.
| detourdog wrote:
| 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.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| 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).
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Sure, but that's _still_ customer brand loyalty. The
| _book_ isn't advertising "Go to Amazon for the cheapest
| prices" on the cover.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > 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.
| thefounder wrote:
| I think visa and Mastercard have the same behaviour even
| supported by the governments. You can't add the visa fee to the
| checkout.
| BooneJS wrote:
| 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.
| bhelkey wrote:
| The EU regulates credit card fees caping them at 0.3% [1].
| That is roughly a fifth of the fees charged in the US and
| roughly two orders of magnitude smaller than Apple app store
| fees.
|
| [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-
| for-...
| thefounder wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Stripe charges 1.5% + EUR0.25 ($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...
| criddell wrote:
| It varies state-to-state.
|
| https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/business/can-a-
| busines...
| ang_cire wrote:
| What? Basically every store I go to adds a fee for credit
| transactions.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| The typical way stores get around it in Canada is with a
| "discount" if you pay cash.
| hulitu wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > _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.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| Imagine if Steve Jobs was starting today, that famous super
| bowl advert from 1984 would allude to Apple, instead of IBM...
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| ... Ouch.
|
| Not wrong.
| ksec wrote:
| 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.
| biftek wrote:
| Is there _any_ marketplace that allows a seller to advertise a
| cheaper alternative within their marketplace?
| sylens wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Ok, guess I'm out of the loop then, I thought they already
| allowed that
| standardUser wrote:
| Apple is happy to deliberately create social strife among kids
| by blocking it's most social app from cross-platform use, just
| to eek out a few more phone sales. That would be bad enough if
| they weren't the market leader. The fact that they are brings
| it to the level of grotesque cruelty.
|
| The point being, Apple is clearly willing to use every trick
| and scheme possible to maintain dominance and should be
| regulated as such. They are begging for it.
| orwin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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.
| alkonaut wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| Liquid_Fire wrote:
| 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?
| samrus wrote:
| 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
| xxs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I thought EU law is already going to allow for alternative
| app stores on iOS?
| zuppy wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Go to a mall. You'll see shops happily advertising their
| stuff, directing people to their websites, asking people to
| download their apps etc.
| kvdveer wrote:
| When the markup is external, this is quite common: e.g.
| shipping, taxes, etc.
| zeusk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| penguinbasher wrote:
| 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.
| biztos wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Thanks, that clears it up I think!
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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."
| xvector wrote:
| The EU is overplaying its hand. It's totally doomed if it
| starts sanctioning big tech companies like Apple. It has no
| tech of its own, having become wholly reliant on American
| tech.
| thibaut_barrere wrote:
| It's a 450M people hand, with decent GDP :-)
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| ... which makes up a small fraction of Apple's profits.
| About 7% [1].
|
| Losing 7% would be "A big deal", although they'd also
| lose a lot of the operational costs so the overall loss
| may be less than that. There are several costs of doing
| business in the EU.
|
| I can also see them selling more to the UK and a black-
| market opening up in the EU for UK phones. Again, not a
| huge thing but a little +ve offset.
|
| Overall, I could see it happening, maybe, emphasis on the
| maybe part. I think the EU thinks it's inconceivable for
| Apple to exit their market. I also think Apple are very
| hard-headed. Make the cost/benefit balance skew too
| heavily in the -ve direction, and the potential of future
| profits stop outweighing the costs.
|
| Personally I really hope they just do as they're told by
| the EU because I think it'd hit the stock, and I could do
| with the stock staying reasonably high in the short term,
| but they'd recover. Hell, they could run on cash/savings
| with no sales for several years at the current rate...
|
| [1]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/more_on_the_eus_m
| arket_mi...
| Iulioh wrote:
| >It's unclear whether Maestri was saying that the EU
| accounts for 7 percent of Apple's worldwide App Store
| revenue, or 7 percent of all revenue, but I suspect it
| doesn't matter, and that both are around 7 percent
|
| Eh.
| mahkeiro wrote:
| Is it a joke? Apple is 27% of Apple revenue, profit is
| irrelevant as this is just finance engineering and you
| can put the value you want for tax reason.
| catoc wrote:
| If Apple stops servicing the EU... ...life will go on. No
| EU country will be "doomed" let alone "totally doomed". I
| prefer many Apple products over Android-based devices or,
| god forbid, any S(h)amsung crap, but the EU will continue
| to prosper without Apple Intelligence, iPhone Sharing or
| even iPhones and Macs at all. The EU is setting a precedent
| that every consumer would benefit from, _especially_ if
| more countries would follow the lead. Yes, the EC's
| approach could be better, they're stumbling forwards
| (cookie-dialogs, plastic-bottle tethered-caps,o insane E2E
| encryption-invalidating proposals etc etc) but I still
| believe the overall direction will ultimately be beneficial
| to many.
| slashdave wrote:
| The purpose of the DMA is to increase competition, not
| directly benefit the consumer. If there is no Apple
| product, you don't have that product to support your
| application and your business.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This is strongly wishful thinking. America isn't even the
| top trade partner of the EU as far as goods go. Many
| companies would literally hold a party if Apple, or any
| other American companies for that matter, left the EU
| market.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| So... what's Apple's argument here? Do they just think the DMA
| was badly drafted, or do they want to strip competition law out
| of the EU? Or is this the same "we have a right to monetize our
| IP[0]" argument they used in the Epic lawsuit?
|
| [0] Intellectual property, in the Doctorowian sense of "thing
| that lets us tell our competitors what to do"
| xvector wrote:
| The DMA _was_ badly drafted, and it 's quite protectionist.
| The EU does not write good tech legislation overall, because
| it does not understand tech industry at a cultural level,
| having never built out its own.
| kklisura wrote:
| Generally wondering: how to you look at US imposing 100%
| tariffs on EVs from China?
| Spivak wrote:
| That it's an absolutely insane thing to do to a trading
| partner and calling prices "artificially low" is just
| "our glorious government investment their savage
| government trade war subsidies." Go read the whitehouse
| announcement, it's blatant. The best part is that is
| centers around IP literally proving that any country that
| ignores the insanity of western IP laws will outcompete.
| Big no no, it's the children that are wrong energy.
|
| Absolutely do not support the US artificially limiting EV
| adoption by forcing prices higher to prop up a domestic
| auto industry that got caught with their pants down. If
| they're gonna sell us EVs below cost we would be stupid
| not to buy them all up and make them lose money. But
| there's the rub, they're not actually doing that, they
| are just able to make them cheaper.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > ...it does not understand tech industry at a cultural
| level, having never built out its own
|
| Consumer products are only a subset of tech. ASML, Siemens,
| ABB, Bosch have been tech industry bellwethers for ages.
| Europe is also no slouch in consumers/web/apps either
| (Spotify, booking.com)
| avianlyric wrote:
| Yes obviously it's protectionist, the whole point of the
| DMA is to protect the EU internal market from entities that
| aren't EU state apparatus from having too much control.
|
| I'm not entirely sure how you say the DMA is badly drafted,
| what do think its objectives are? It's not a "tech law" at
| all, it's a market competition law that designed to deal
| with the unique imbalances created by large tech companies
| that historical competition law hasn't adequately dealt
| with.
| numair wrote:
| 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).
| gield wrote:
| The EU fined Meta for 1.2 billion dollars last year, the
| largest GDPR fine ever [1]. And last month, the EU announced
| another investigation into Meta [2].
|
| [1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-
| fi...
|
| [2]
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
| Sprotch wrote:
| I suggest you read the EU's press release. I don't understand
| how anyone could side with Apple on this.
|
| Link:
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
| Mashimo wrote:
| The press release for this also mentions they are investigating
| Meta.
| jstsch wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of
| Apple's control impact _your_ enjoyment of your devices?
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| robertfall wrote:
| In the EU Safari is no longer used by default. You're
| forced to choose a browser when setting up the phone.
| jstsch wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Then IMO this went too far. All they needed to do was
| allow people to doanload alternatives if they want them.
| gbalduzzi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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?
| slashdave wrote:
| Because web sites will start using Chrome only features
| and stick a big box over the page insisting the user
| switch. Unless, of course, you want to pass complete
| control over web standards to Google.
| Novosell wrote:
| That's not very clear to me. How would it affect anything?
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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.
| vsl wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| Moldoteck wrote:
| 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
| hindsightbias wrote:
| 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"
| lucianbr wrote:
| 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".
| jstsch wrote:
| 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).
| matwood wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| npilk wrote:
| > 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.
| jstsch wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Have you ... ever dealt with people? This doesn't seem to
| be the typical reality for most.
| alt227 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| matwood wrote:
| 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.
| gbalduzzi wrote:
| > 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.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jstsch wrote:
| Downvotes for an alternate viewpoint, what is this, Reddit?
| pstric wrote:
| Answers seem to imply the downvotes are for a naive rather
| than alternate viewpoint.
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| This is a big enough forum that you will find anti-Apple
| posters that will reflexively downvote anything sympathetic
| to Apple.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Providing a good service which "lock you in" is a good
| thing. What do you rather?
| alt227 wrote:
| 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'.
| layer8 wrote:
| Downvotes on HN are (also) for mere disagreement:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
| gbalduzzi wrote:
| 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
| Moldoteck wrote:
| 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.
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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.
| chipweinberger wrote:
| Might not be homegrown.
|
| Anyone could come in.
|
| Would be a nice enticement too.
| andersa wrote:
| Apple has invested more work into malicious non-compliance than
| it would have taken to simply do it right the first time.
| hifromwork wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| China is a huge market and Google left. Anything is possible.
| Jensson wrote:
| Apple hasn't left China though, why would they leave Europe
| that has much less regulatory issues?
| graemep wrote:
| nor have they left Russia despite sanctions (and have not
| attracted the opprobrium for that that companies like
| Unilever have)
| endisneigh wrote:
| I am not saying they will leave, I'm saving it's for me
| anyway, no longer inconceivable.
| user_7832 wrote:
| The EU is much closer to the US than China is, however.
| troupo wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > It's a huge market
|
| Approximately 7% of Apple's worldwide revenue: https://daring
| fireball.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.
| Jensson wrote:
| I really doubt that blogs numbers, the revenue share in
| Europe is around 25%, I doubt less than a third of that is
| in EU:
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/382288/geographical-
| regi....
| jsnell wrote:
| 7% of _App Store_ revenue. Not all their revenue.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| 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.
| lurking_swe wrote:
| Gathering some hard data...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth
| _pe...
|
| look at the "by country" table. If sorted by mean, 2
| countries in the top 10. If sorted by median, 3.
|
| I agree that 7% of app store revenue seems low. HOWEVER
| keep in mind that the EU is tiny on a population level.
| Not a single county cracks the top ten. So maybe not so
| surprising...
| hu3 wrote:
| 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.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Sure, and then they can leave Japan and India next, as well.
| rolandboon wrote:
| 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/bc2d7f45d45
| 6-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.
| sloowm wrote:
| 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.
| blackoil wrote:
| 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.
| bogwog wrote:
| > 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.
| sensanaty wrote:
| God I'd give anything to see that happen. It would be the
| happiest day of my life, especially once (not if) other
| countries start following suit with their own regulations that
| will target Apple and they pull out of more and more countries
| until they only sell in Texas, I guess.
|
| Shame it's a pipe dream
| gargs wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > I thought this was about malicious apps that collected
| private data behind your back
|
| No, where did you get that idea from?
| threeseed wrote:
| This comment would have made sense in the late 90s.
|
| Today we have decades of experience that the majority of
| users are not capable of making informed decisions when
| it comes to topics like app permissions. Especially the
| flow on implications e.g. allow the app to record the
| screen could mean your bank details are exposed.
| alt227 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| slashdave wrote:
| Sure, but why not just cut out the middlemen? Just install
| a EU representative in each Apple office, and they can
| watch over all the developers and dictate features.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| 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.
| sccxy wrote:
| I guess reasonable fine for this breach is 30% of revenue in EU
| just like in the app store.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Maybe they ought to fine Apple 50 cents per installed app from
| their App Store, since apparently they consider that perfectly
| fine and reasonable.
| NayamAmarshe wrote:
| Don't forget the $99 per app.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| wrong, its 99 per developer
| treeFall wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Or even 'Pay with Apple Pay' on your website.
| tzs wrote:
| So?
| The_Colonel wrote:
| The fine is up to 10% of global revenue, but that's not far
| from the 30% of revenue from EU.
| xvector wrote:
| Maybe we should just fine any company 100% of revenue if they
| breach a law, since that's just as arbitrary of a number and
| makes our region more money.
| classified wrote:
| So when do we address the elephant in the room and designate
| Apple a Criminal Enterprise(tm)?
| epolanski wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Assuming EU won't slap a $30B fine. this approach didn't work
| very well for MS.
| igammarays wrote:
| 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.
| xandrius wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| avianlyric wrote:
| I'm not sure how they could have gone broader. The EU is
| saying that Apple payments offering need to compete on
| level playing field with other payment options. I don't
| really see what being "inclusive of technical expertise"
| would bring to the table, beyond what's already there.
| ak217 wrote:
| 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.
| mastercheif wrote:
| Would you consider an Airbnb property that offered $0.99 per
| night rates for max 1 night and then asked you arrange
| alternative payment for additional nights to be in violation
| of Airbnb policy?
| blackoil wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tpmoney wrote:
| Same way anyone gives software away for free, put the
| source code up and give instructions for compiling /
| installing. That Apple imposes time limits on self
| installed applications is the user's problem, not the
| developer's. The user chose the platform, the
| consequences of that are theirs to bear. If they wanted
| to install arbitrary applications that weren't beholden
| to Apple's rules the options for that were always there.
| Apple's restrictions are well known and are as
| restrictive as they have ever been, there was no bait and
| switch here.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I'm sure we both understand why "put it on GitHub" is not
| free in any meaningful sense on a platform that charges
| people $99/yr to use the compiler. The point here is that
| Apple is insisting they own every part of the system and
| neither the user nor the developer can touch any of it
| without their permission.
| tpmoney wrote:
| I would understand that if that were true, but Apple does
| not "[charge] people $99/yr to use the compiler." I'd
| also once again point out that even were that the case,
| that's still the user's problem, not the developer's. At
| a certain point a user is responsible for the choices
| they have made, which includes choosing the second most
| popular cell phone OS, with well known heavy restrictions
| on applications as their platform of choice. If I chose
| to do all of my computing using a nintendo switch, the
| fact that I need to buy a dev kit to even begin to have a
| chance of installing something like firefox is my problem
| as a user, not Mozilla's, nor does it make firefox any
| less meaningfully free.
| stephen_g wrote:
| That just seems like a ridiculous argument... People choose
| to enter the Apple ecosystem and pay a premium for what are
| luxury goods. At the same time they hold their resale value
| extremely well, most iPhone users could sell their iPhone and
| probably buy a competing phone with cash left over if they
| wanted...
|
| There's really very little holding people captive. The real
| problem with the EC's attempts at regulation is that the vast
| majority of users aren't worried about it and keep freely
| buying into the platform despite other viable options being
| available in a competitive market...
| tpmoney wrote:
| 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.
| crowcroft wrote:
| 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.
| riscy wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Apple provides a custom operating system (frameworks,
| drivers, security updates, backwards compatibility, etc) to
| make that business's app function, and continue to function,
| at all.
|
| You can write and maintain a website instead of an app to
| avoid that.
| tebbers wrote:
| Oh like a PWA? That Apple can cripple and has crippled at a
| moment's notice?
| crowcroft wrote:
| This would be a better argument if Apple didn't also lock
| down the capability of web browsers not called Safari.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Landlords provide infrastructure (wall, roofs, electrical
| systems, plumbing, fire systems) needed for shops to
| function, or continue to function at all.
|
| Shops could just build their own market stands to avoid
| their landlords owning the relationship with their
| customers.
|
| Huh, that argument doesn't seem as reasonable when applied
| to landlords and buildings.
|
| And yes, many app developers don't pay much or anything to
| Apple, and shops always pay rent. But here's the thing, as
| an Apple customer I pay Apple when I buy my phone. Why
| should Apple be allowed to double dip? It never seems
| reasonable when ISP want to charge their customers _and_
| content providers for bandwidth, so why is it reasonable
| for Apple to do something similar with Apps?
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Read what you wrote again, and think about it. If you don't
| like AirBnB you can use one of the competitors, but there are
| no competitors to Apple? Would you consider that you might
| have a blind spot to something very obvious?
| arccy wrote:
| For AirBnB (temporary lodging), if you don't like it,
| typically you're only stuck with it for a few days and you
| can make a different choice afterwards.
|
| Phones, for many people, are something they will use for
| years so they're essentially locked in a lot of the time.
| It's more like long term rentals, where the renter usually
| gets stronger protections too.
| crowcroft wrote:
| I think we're defining markets differently which is where
| this is debatable.
|
| If you say that the App Store is an extension of the iPhone
| and you're buying into that when you buy a phone, sure I
| can see the argument that the App Store by default has no
| competitors on the iPhone and people are agreeing to that
| when they buy an iPhone/develop for the iPhone, and so the
| competition is Google (and by extension the Play store.
|
| I just don't think we should accept the tight coupling of
| hardware and software distribution by default though.
|
| Even then if you do, the strongest argument for Apple gives
| us a duopoly that both exhibit strong anti-competitive
| behaviours.
|
| I do have some sympathy for Apple here though. When
| Nintendo takes tight control over distribution on the
| switch is that also a monopoly? When your product
| essentially becomes a utility though I think some form of
| regulation ends up being good for society as a whole.
| lmm wrote:
| > If you don't like AirBnB you can use one of the
| competitors, but there are no competitors to Apple?
|
| There isn't enough competition. Apple is in a monopolistic
| market position. AirBNB isn't, at least not yet. That's a
| contingent fact about the current state of affairs, but I
| think it's true - there's a lot of pressure to be on Apple,
| whereas there's not much pressure to be on AirBNB.
| benced wrote:
| 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.
| nuker wrote:
| > I do care if the software that mediates our lives is
|
| If you DO care about this, implementing this regulation as is
| will only make the software worse, not better. Apple did a
| good job so far keeping developers in check.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| 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.
| supergeek133 wrote:
| The State of MN stopped accepting certain credit cards for
| many DMV type activities, and now only accept ones that allow
| an explicit surcharge (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex).
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| 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.
| tebbers wrote:
| Airbnb isn't a duopoly.
| proxyon wrote:
| > AirBnB doesn't allow hosts to accept cash or arrange
| alternative payment.
|
| Not a computer or operating system I paid for.
|
| > Amazon doesn't allow suppliers to offer direct sales to
| potential customers.
|
| Not a computer or operating system I paid for.
|
| > Even Visa and Mastercard officially don't allow merchants to
| offer discounts for cash transactions (although many do
| anyway). Etc, etc.
|
| Not a computer or operating system I paid for.
|
| In fact in every single case you listed a _free_ platform that
| makes its money by charging fees per use. This is radically
| different from Apple 's model.
|
| Apple makes computers. Apple iDevices are some of the most
| expensive computers on the market. Apple cloud services are
| some of the most expensive cloud services on the market.
| Apple's operating systems hardcode the software to the
| hardware, meaning neither phone nor laptop can be upgraded. In
| every single case these are expensive devices and services that
| people _already own_. They should be free to download whatever
| software they want without a monopolizer telling them what 's
| allowed to run on them.
| mirzap wrote:
| 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).
| xandrius wrote:
| 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.
| MilaM wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > Then your apps won't expire.
|
| Correction: then your apps will last a year before they
| expire. You'll still need to reinstall yearly.
| acheong08 wrote:
| That still requires a MacBook. It makes it almost impossible
| for open source developers to make applications for IOS
| xandrius wrote:
| Open source != owning a mac
|
| I agree that the hardware requirement is bullshit and
| mostly unnecessary.
| alt227 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I share the same exact sentiment.
|
| I hope they get hit hard.
| robertfall wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Where are you getting 10%. It is close to 25% for fy23.
| ssijak wrote:
| "10% of global revenue" - What does EU have to do with GLOBAL
| revenue? Where is the logic in that.
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| 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.
| Vespasian wrote:
| 1. The logic in that is to prevent Apple from trying any
| shenenigans where "technically" Apple Europe has 10EUR
| 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.
| lucianbr wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > so you want to fine them 76 billion?"
|
| No, what the EU wants is for Apple to comply with the
| regulations.
|
| Nobody would have to be fined anything if Apple simply
| stopped playing these silly games, and followed the law.
| alt227 wrote:
| It is very easy for these companies to shift money around
| their books to look like none of it came from a certain
| country.
| igammarays wrote:
| 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.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Because side-loading is a thing that works well on Windows.
| alt227 wrote:
| Not only works well, but is the default accepted way of
| installing applications.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| 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.
| lolinder wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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).
| alt227 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| paulmd wrote:
| 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.
| JohnnyMarcone wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| inexcf wrote:
| But you can sell steam keys with Valve taking a 0% cut.
| jeffhuys wrote:
| See the 2 sibling comments 10 mins before you
| treeFall wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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?
| zeta0134 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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?
| criddell wrote:
| Sony hasn't marketed the PS5 as a general purpose
| computer, but they did that with the PS2 and 3.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2
| hu3 wrote:
| Economical viably? No software.
|
| It's a platform for games.
|
| With input devices targeted for games.
|
| With an operational system target for games.
| criddell wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > You're seriously asking me how is Playstation OS
| targeted at games?
|
| We know the OS is great for games. What I'm asking is why
| it's not good for other things (the OS kernel is FreeBSD
| 11).
|
| 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 that seems to be
| enough for many people here to no longer think of them as
| computers.
|
| If the dividing line between general purpose computer and
| appliance is in how the manufacturer lets you use it,
| then what functionality would the iPhone need to lose to
| in order for you to stop thinking the iPhone is a general
| purpose computer?
| endisneigh wrote:
| > 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.
| badwolf wrote:
| Everyone also conveniently forgets that in many cases, Apple
| is only charging 15%, not 30 (small business, long-term
| subscriptions, etc...)
| jimkoen wrote:
| You are conveniently forgetting that this was a direct
| response to the Epic Games lawsuit, as to not appear too
| anti competetive:
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-lowers-app-store-
| tax-...
|
| Apple only makes concessions when it is under legislative
| pressure.
| hylaride wrote:
| 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.
| hylaride wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Which is why DMA says nothing about 30%, and this
| complaint is largely about Apple forbidding steering.
| lxgr wrote:
| Imagine if Steam were the only way to purchase games on your
| Windows PC.
| euroderf wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| 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.
| andersa wrote:
| 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.
| lolinder wrote:
| Yep, so the problem isn't how much they're charging at
| all, it's the tight lock down.
|
| I like your sibling comment's summation:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40776710
| pier25 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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."
| tensor wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tensor wrote:
| Sure, putting files on a CDN is very cheap. But, point of
| sales is a massive pain in the ass. Updates are a massive
| pain in the ass, notifying users of updates and security
| patches, not to mention marketing. These things are such a
| huge pain that I can see why a platform would charge more
| than pennies for them.
|
| Facing building out exactly this stuff myself using Stripe,
| a traditional website, building in licensing keys, etc etc.
| If something like the app store were multi-platform and had
| a bit more support around offline licensing and things like
| upgrade pricing, then honestly I would not immediately
| discount it even at 30% cut. Especially if I got some
| marketing out of it too.
|
| You can argue wether 30% is the right number, but what the
| app store provides is definitely not "basically nothing".
| m3kw9 wrote:
| 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.
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| gostsamo wrote:
| 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.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| rodonn wrote:
| The profit maximizing price after a 30% cut `q(price) *
| (price - 30% _price)` is not the same as the profit
| maximizing price without that cut `q(price)_ price`.
|
| As long as the demand curve is downward sloping, there will
| be some pass through of Apple's cut to customers, though
| the fraction that is passed through will depend on price
| elasticity.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > 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
| lxgr wrote:
| > 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!
| freeAgent wrote:
| Competitive pricing doesn't work when you're in a
| monopoly/monopsony scenario, which is the case with Apple's App
| Store.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Some more discussion on the official commission release:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806
| retskrad wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| oblio wrote:
| That was quick.
| ang_cire wrote:
| 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.
| topherPedersen wrote:
| I wish the United States would follow the EU on this. It's insane
| that 1 company has near complete control over what software can
| and cannot be published, and they get to take a tax on all
| software sold. Absolutely insane. Obviously there's web, Android,
| Windows, Linux, gaming consoles, and smart tvs, so there are some
| work-arounds to avoid the evil empire, but most consumers here in
| the United States use iPhones and probably have no idea that
| Apple is taxing all of the app developers and exercising complete
| editorial control over all software published for the iPhone. Do
| you think consumers know that Apple literally reviews all
| software companies products and then decide whether they will
| allow that company or product to exist? Even worse, its not even
| high level executives making these decisions, it's $20 an hour
| employees on their App Review Board making these decisions to
| kill entire companies.
| multimoon wrote:
| Could you just not buy their products then?
|
| While there are more consumer friendly ways to do it sure, I
| don't see anything illegal or wrong here. You're buying their
| hardware, with the software licensing understanding that comes
| with it - if you don't like the terms you don't buy the
| hardware.
|
| There isn't a moral calculus that is or needs to be involved
| here, it's a simple flat "don't buy their product if you don't
| like it". If enough people cared and did so, they'd change very
| quickly.
|
| Apple isn't a monopoly, there are plenty of alternatives that
| might suit your needs better.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| Like a lot of anti-monopoly laws, the harmed party is not the
| consumer but other businesses.
|
| No, you cannot simply refuse to give Apple their 30% (unless
| you are yourself big enough to negotiate an exemption;
| including waiving a 30% fee of your own for Apple's apps on
| your platforms) if you want access to their huge and very
| lucrative market.
|
| Microsoft lost an anti-monopoly case because they bundled a
| free browser with Windows. Forcing your competitors to pay
| 30% and thus have higher costs and prices than your own
| competing services is a much more straightforward violation.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > if you want access to their huge and very lucrative
| market.
|
| But what gives some third party the right to that huge and
| lucrative market? It seems parasitic in a kind of way to
| demand that right.
| jemmyw wrote:
| Competition laws
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their
| software on competing devices or operating systems. I
| don't see how an honest person could claim that they're
| doing anything anti-competitive. I see how the EU
| politicians can claim that, because they are dishonest
| and expected to support parasitic actions.
| talldayo wrote:
| > Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their
| software on competing devices or operating systems
|
| But Apple _does_ hinder every developer from selling
| their software on Apple devices without using Apple 's
| mandatory software distribution service. Which most of us
| can agree, is relatively monopolistic in nature and
| creates a captive market of Apple customers ripe for
| abuse.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "I don't see how an honest person could claim that
| they're doing anything anti-competitive."
|
| I, on the other side, very much see it, given how huge
| the market share of Apple is.
|
| I would be with you if Apple had 5 per cent of the
| smartphone market. Nevertheless, their very size makes
| any of their actions that restricts freedoms of their
| customes at least suspicious of being anti-competitive.
| melesian wrote:
| Perhaps you should inform yourself by reading the DMA.
| You won't find in it anything about Apple or anyone else
| hindering developers from selling elsewhere.
|
| What the EU is regulating is fair competition for very
| large platforms, defined as having 45m or more users.
| These benefit from network effects and may be operated in
| ways that inhibit competition.
|
| Do you also believe that John D. Rockefeller never did
| anything anti-competitive? lol
|
| If Apple wants to sell in the EU it will have to abide by
| EU rules decided by democratically elected politicians.
| The US has proven incapable and or unwilling to regulate
| big tech. The EU has been slow and won't always get it
| right first time but it's trying. This is why EU citizens
| have e.f., privacy rights Americans don't, why broadband
| costs way less in the EU than the US etc.
|
| If parasitism is what interests you I suggest directing
| your attention to rentier capitalism and the never ending
| upward flow of wealth to the 1% and the extent to which
| US politicians are owned by billionaires.
| RoyalHenOil wrote:
| So are you accusing of most of the readers and
| participants in this comment section of being dishonest?
|
| Do you commonly just assume that people who disagree with
| you are dishonest?
| palata wrote:
| > It seems parasitic in a kind of way to demand that
| right.
|
| Third parties bring value to the platform. Try to remove
| all the third parties from the Apple Store and see how
| people react.
|
| Apple's sales of iPhones benefit from the third parties,
| but they use their dominant position to take a huge cut
| of what the third parties sell.
|
| One could say: either Apple gives access to third parties
| in a decent way, or they just don't. Apple needs the
| third parties (otherwise they would not give them access
| in the first place, obviously), so they should give them
| decent conditions.
| kklisura wrote:
| > don't buy their product if you don't like it
|
| I like their product. If I buy it: do I own it or do I rent
| it from them? Obvious next question: If I own it, do I have
| right to install whatever I want?
| jdmg94 wrote:
| I like a product from Ford, if I own it I have the right to
| install whatever I want right? Except Ford has no
| obligation to make their products compatible with other car
| makers. If I wanted to LS-swap an F150 it would require a
| lot of technical knowledge, time, and help but it can be
| done. You can develop your own jailbreaks for iOS it just
| requires a lot of technical knowledge, time, and help.
| kklisura wrote:
| Apple products are general purpose computers while Ford
| is not.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| iphone is absolutely not a general purpose computer, nor
| has it ever purported to be.
| kklisura wrote:
| Would you mind providing your definition of general
| purpose computer.
| mbrameld wrote:
| I think a better analogy would be swapping tires instead
| of an engine. Engine swaps are rare, most people
| understand there are physical complications to using an
| engine from one car in another, even from the same
| manufacturer. Tire swaps are common, most people expect
| that if the tire is the right size you can put it on your
| car, regardless of who made it or where you got it.
|
| The same is true for apps on a computing device.
| Installing new ones is common, not rare like an engine
| swap in a car. Most people expect that if the app is
| compatible with the hardware you can put it on the
| device, regardless of who made it or where you got it.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Ford did not go out of their way to make LS swaps
| particularly difficult on the F150. Apple has gone to
| very great lengths to make something that is VERY simple
| (installing software in an OS) very difficult.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Are you read the software licenses for the whole software
| ecosystem in an Apple shop at purchase time?
| gary_0 wrote:
| Go back in time 20 years and tell someone that the most popular
| personal computer taxes every transaction that runs on it for
| 30% and has absolute control over what software runs on it
| including banning any programs it doesn't like, and they'd look
| at you like you were crazy. And then be like, "Fucking Bill
| Gates! How'd he pull that off?"
| coob wrote:
| They'd snap your hands off for distribution and marketing
| costs as low as 30%.
|
| Retail markups were much higher on physical software.
| msh wrote:
| For retail software yes, but distributing for next to
| nothing over the internet was also common (depending on the
| target group) 20 years ago.
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| You mean distributing .mob files on xda-developers and
| needing to speak with carriers to distribute your app?
|
| There's a reason most developers moved in droves to Apple
| ecosystem for amazing APIs, software and hardware,
| abandoned Symbian/blackberry/etc and had no issues with
| the 30% fee since they instantly got market access to
| millions of consumers.
|
| 30% was never an issue to begin with. People just feel
| today that everyone should get access to a marketplace
| with billion users for free, often forgetting what it
| took to build this market in the first place.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| > People just feel today that everyone should get access
| to a marketplace with billion users for free
|
| Exactly
|
| > often forgetting what it took to build this market in
| the first place.
|
| Don't give a fuck
| paulddraper wrote:
| "Micro$oft amiright"
| misswaterfairy wrote:
| ApplEUR as well now.
| Spivak wrote:
| What Apple does is bad but they don't tax 30% of every
| transaction. Apple isn't taking a 30% of your Uber or
| DoorDash, they charge 30% for sales made on their platform
| for digital goods and services redeemed on that platform.
|
| I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed
| to take a cut of game sales on the PS5 outside of "well we
| all decided collectively to make that illegal because we
| don't like it." And honestly that's plenty enough for
| legislation but it's not going to be without consequences
| because Apple will extract their pound of flesh somewhere,
| can't have profits go down.
|
| > The commission says a fee for such matchmaking is
| justifiable but what Apple charges goes "beyond what is
| strictly necessary".
|
| The EU commission is a hair away from just telling Apple what
| they're allowed to charge which I don't love. Either _how_
| Apple extracts fees is legal and how much is up to the
| market, or it isn 't. Saying "it's legal as long as the
| percent is small enough" is silly.
| fireflash38 wrote:
| > Either how Apple extracts fees is legal and how much is
| up to the market, or it isn't.
|
| Whose market? The one that Apple controls?
|
| Arguably PS5/Nintendo stuff is just as obnoxious... just in
| smaller scale. Do you really own that device you bought?
| pocketarc wrote:
| > Saying "it's legal as long as the percent is small
| enough" is silly.
|
| Credit card companies have had caps on their fee
| percentages in the EU for a long time, it's not unusual for
| the EU to set these limits.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Should Google Chrome ask for 30% of web purchases?
| Spivak wrote:
| I think it's funny people argue this when Google already
| does extract a massive pound of flesh from web purchases
| and uses Chrome to push "the web" where they control the
| market.
|
| I have to pay the Apple tax to reach my customers where
| they are, iOS.
|
| I have to pay the Google tax to reach my customers where
| they are, the web dominated by Doubleclick and Google
| search.
|
| Do you care _that_ a tech company is extracting huge sums
| from digital markets or do you just care how? Does it
| make a lick of difference that with ad spend it _feels_
| like you 're buying something or when you put ads on your
| site you never see the money they took off the top?
| tines wrote:
| > massive pound of flesh
|
| Technically, all pounds of flesh are the same mass :)
| Spivak wrote:
| Love that, I fully expect "pound of flesh" to soon have
| an entry in the dictionary for "an unspecified amount of
| flesh" to annoy language prescriptivists.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| > What Apple does is bad but they don't tax 30% of every
| transaction. Apple isn't taking a 30% of your Uber or
| DoorDash, they charge 30% for sales made on their platform
| for digital goods and services redeemed on that platform.
|
| You're mischaracterising the situation. Apple taxes 30% of
| all transactions made on apps other than exempt
| transactions. The food and tangible services you mentioned
| are exempt categories. Apple takes a 30% cut of all sales
| of digital goods and services transacted on apps on their
| platform, regardless of whether the goods are "redeemed on
| that platform" (whatever that means). Of course Apple has
| built a byzantine maze of carve-outs, exemptions and
| counter-exemptions that muddy the waters and give them
| great power if you're a small developer without the
| resources to fight them for your rights.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| > it's not going to be without consequences because Apple
| will extract their pound of flesh somewhere, can't have
| profits go down.
|
| You write this as if Apple is the authority figure here.
|
| Profits can very easily go down.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be
| allowed to take a cut of game sales on the PS5
|
| I agree, it's hard to argue that. Sony created a narrow-
| purpose platform (gaming + media) and is taking a cut for
| offering 3rd party games there. It's not a general purpose
| computer designed to be your main communication device and
| your key to connect you to any type of service or appliance
| in your world.
|
| Sony didn't sell best-in-class TVs, then used their
| dominating position to demand revenue-share from
| broadcasters, then integrated a gaming console for the same
| price to crush console competitors, then created a custom
| plug and partnered with building companies that their plug
| shall be in all living rooms, then launched a watch which
| would only work if you also have their TVs, then started a
| bank and mandated that all products promoted on any TV
| channel must only be payable via their payment service,...
|
| ...and then when a commission started setting boundaries on
| its grip over the market, started complaining how the
| commission is preventing competition, how only Sony can
| ensure a secure living room and safe TV-experience, and
| started weaponizing its customers (with the custom sockets,
| watches and wallets all on Sony) against their own elected
| regulatory body...
| DigiEggz wrote:
| Gave me a good laugh.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| > gaming consoles
|
| To my knowledge none of the big three consoles allow you to
| install anything you want on them. They're "walled gardens"
| just as badly as Apple's ecosystem.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Banks and train companies don't try to run payment apps on
| them.
|
| Even if technically they could, the fact that they don't is
| to me the crucial difference.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Seems like a different problem.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It is, but it's intertwined in the Apple vs other
| platforms issue.
|
| Regulators make a difference between general purpose
| platforms and dedicated/single purpose platforms.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Game consoles are not general computing devices. Apple has
| _aggressively and repeatedly_ marketed iOS devices as being
| for general-purpose computing. (Remember the "what's a
| computer" ads?)
|
| If Apple wants to claim their devices are computer
| replacements, they should be regulated like it.
| paulddraper wrote:
| What regulations exist on computer devices that Apple is
| evading?
| bhelkey wrote:
| According to this article, Digital Markets Act (DMA).
| talldayo wrote:
| > none of the big three consoles allow you to install
| anything you want on them.
|
| The Xbox kinda does: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devk...
|
| And while unofficial, the Nintendo Switch has an exploit
| chain that lets you run native apps or mainline Linux/Android
| with Nvidia's Tegra drivers: https://github.com/CTCaer/hekate
| https://github.com/Atmosphere-NX/Atmosphere
|
| So that's two of the big three consoles that technically do
| let you install anything you want.
| I-M-S wrote:
| Saying Nintendo are tolerant of users doing anything on
| their hardware the company doesn't approve of is stretching
| the truth beyond recognition.
| talldayo wrote:
| Sure, but that being said the 3DS, Wii, Wii U and
| Nintendo Switch all have enormous homebrew communities.
| It's nowhere near Sony's OtherOS levels of support, but
| the board does have functioning CPU/GPU drivers and can
| run pretty much "anything" you'd expect from an Aarch64
| Linux target.
|
| It's more of a technical nuance in the Switch's case, but
| homebrew on Nintendo consoles is a time-honored
| tradition.
| farmerbb wrote:
| Last I checked you could only exploit Switches manufactured
| in the first couple years of its lifespan without going the
| hardware mod route.
| paulddraper wrote:
| XBox is/was so open it spawned a very popular media platform:
| XBMC (XBox Media Center)
| ErneX wrote:
| That required circumventing its protections via a hardware
| or software mod.
| bsaul wrote:
| Except they only have very limited use. Smartphones are now
| ubiquitous.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Something that tickled me occasionally was much of my extended
| family assumed Apple was paying me to make the point of sale
| app, so restauranteurs would buy iPhones/iPads to use at their
| restaurant.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Why would the US do that? Europe has no issues when a European
| corporation has market dominance. It would be dumb for them to
| do so in a global market. Do you see any push for diversifying
| the european market by breaking up corporations like SAP or
| ASML? If anything those two have an even tighter control over
| their respective markets than apple could ever have over their
| own.
| spookie wrote:
| Nobody is ever going to break up ASML. Apple is, in the grand
| scheme of things much less important. Much less.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Yes, but the US or the EU could've pushed for a break up
| when most of its EUV research was in the US. Market
| dominance wasn't built overnight.
|
| Yes, it would now be very hard to do. But that goes back to
| my original point, Europe does not really care about market
| dominance and fairness as long as European corporations are
| the ones dominating. As you said, if competition and market
| health was the objective...what ASML does is very important
| and shouldn't be left to a single corporation. They have
| complete market control over a critical part of something
| that's foundational to our modern economy.
|
| But I've never heard of a single European move to do
| something about that. SAP also has a de facto monopoly on
| entire parts of business processes and administration.
|
| Also, apple is in many ways just as important to the US
| government. So nobody is going to break them up, in the US
| at least.
|
| I'm not making a judgement here, I'm just saying that it's
| weird to expect the US to shoot itself in the foot, just
| like it would be weird to expect Europe to do the same. For
| the EU, the issue is more that Apple isn't European.
| talldayo wrote:
| > what ASML does is very important and shouldn't be left
| to a single corporation.
|
| But that's not what market abuse is about. How is ASML
| impairing their competitors? What would breaking them up
| do, besides create a second ASML? You have to explain how
| separating ASML's IP helps the market or their customers.
|
| > So nobody is going to break them up, in the US at
| least.
|
| Didn't people say the same thing about Microsoft? "How
| would they get broken up over something as insignificant
| as Netscape?"
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Microsoft wasn't seen as a strategic asset back then, and
| the US wasn't in a semi cold war.
|
| In any case, I was talking about the concept of breaking
| up large national corporations moreso than this specific
| case, since the comment I was replying to was talking
| about how the US should start looking into breaking up
| Apple too.
|
| (Even then, I also gave SAP as an example, which
| perfectly fits the apple modus operandi of taking
| advantage of their closed ecosystem to destroy
| competition. but in a way that even apple couldn't ever
| dream of. And once you get into said ecosystem, you will
| start using the gigantic constellation of SAP products
| and be locked in to the extreme. Impairing competitors
| would be putting it lightly. Yet, no European probe
| either.)
| WheatMillington wrote:
| You point out that there's actually a lot of competition, but
| that consumers prefer Apple. Isn't this contrary to your
| greater point?
| noodleman wrote:
| It's hard not to prefer the ecosystem that is designed to
| make it as painful as it can be to switch to a competitor.
| slashdave wrote:
| What do you mean? This is literally how Apple advertises their
| store: "a big part of those experiences is ensuring that the
| apps we offer are held to the highest standards for privacy,
| security, and content". Maybe you want Apple to advertise more
| effectively?
|
| https://www.apple.com/app-store/
| indiantinker wrote:
| Wow! What if Apple decided to stop operating in EU altogether ?
| xvector wrote:
| The EU would rapidly collapse if US big tech pulled out. It
| actively prevents the development of a flourishing tech
| industry.
| postalrat wrote:
| Nah, there would just be more Androids phones sold.
| nuker wrote:
| What EU is doing is wrong. There is costs in running App Store,
| and asking for it to be fee free does not make sense. Allowing
| 3rd party Stores will wide open mass public to scams, data leaks
| and worse.
|
| Developers are getting a very good deal for their small fee by SW
| industry metrics. Their apps gets displayed and sold by Apple,
| all things covered, no chargebacks, no running costs.
|
| I feel threatened as a user by what EU is doing. Next thing to
| expect - many apps will require(!) always on location...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-24 23:01 UTC)