EU Chief Calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to Open Hardware and Software Ecosystem

[bcortens]

And what is stopping someone distributing the app for ”free” in the App Store and then setting up a web based payment outside of the store.

I will give you an example

silicondust distribute the HDHomeRun Apps in the AppStores.
this allows to use the HDHomeRun Tuners to watch TV on your iPhone, iPad, AppleTV.

the App is free so no commission to Apple.

if however want to do recordings then have to buy a license which is done from the silicondust website who last time used have a 3rd Party payment system, (to whom they will pay a slice or commission for handling the transaction)

however Apple don’t see any money for this directly other then that I bought the iPad, iPhone, AppleTV.

works the same way on mobile devices running Android.

so now exactly why do developers HAVE to pay Apple commission. Silicondust aren’t and they don’t seem to have any issues with Apple on the AppStore of Google with it’s AppStore.

make a ”free” product that limited and put in AppStore. Unlock by going to website and buying.

they can simply setup own transaction payment system outside of the store and still comply with the AppStore requirements and don’t have to pay Apple any commission.

Silicon Dust didn’t need any regulation there either to do so and been using for years.

They are probably in the "reader" app exemption and Apple's rules are attempting to limit who is allowed to use that exemption. If your app doesn't qualify then you can't charge on your own website.

Apple also is trying to prevent linking to the website payment platform from within the app. This is to force users to leave the app, go to safari, then go back to the app manually - maybe typing in their password again. The EU and others are now clamping down on this because it is a "steering" measure designed not to make the user experience better but to make the experience of using a payment system other than the App Store worse.

 

[BaldiMac]

Arbitrary meaning that the categories are chosen not based on Apple's need to control the platform or based on the needs to fund API research and development. The categories are arbitrary in the sense that they exist only for business reasons and not for technological reasons. This is unfair to all app developers that do not have Amazon or Netflix's power.

Business reasons are still reasons and so, by definition, not arbitrary. That just a loaded word that you are trying to use to describe a normal business decision.

This isn't the same thing at all. Apple is running a stand that sells other people's food, people who sell ice cream get to keep all revenue they make selling through to their customers while those that sell yoghurt have to pay Apple a percent fee for no other reason that Apple cannot afford to annoy the ice cream companies but they yogurt companies are too small to do anything about it.

Again, outside of the loaded language that you choose to use, you are describing a normal business decision. I've helped organize a market where food vendors paid a commission on sales and product vendors paid a flat fee for their location. Perfectly normal.

No, Apple has a reasonable interest in preventing those things from appearing in the App Store for some of those reasons.
Arbitrary code execution can already happen with Apple's approval and review.
Bypassing the App Store is fine as I have repeatedly said, I (and the EU agrees) believe that Apple should not be able to act as the sole gatekeeper to the software the EU citizens run on their phones.
Game developers are never going to target emulators.
Facebook already tried to ditch native frameworks but ended up rewriting their app to use the native frameworks as that provided a better user experience. Furthermore React Native exists already but it isn't widely embraced because it is worse .

I don't know how any of those points rebut what I said.

As I made a large post about it previously I won't go over it too much here, but, the short version. iPhone without Apps is worth less than iPhone with Apps. While it is true Apple creates value for Spotify, Spotify also creates value for Apple, this is a two way street. The lack of apps on Blackberry OS and Windows Phone are a big part of why they failed. By the logic of value added and compensation, what percentage of iPhone revenue should be redistributed to App developers as compensation for helping make the iPhone so popular?

You are going off the rails here. It's certainly a two way street, but that doesn't mean that the value the individual developers bring to the platform is equal to the value that they receive from Apple. I think an developer union would be interesting.

Also, if this was about compensation for value created then the reader app exemption would not exist. Apple can't have it both ways, they can't simultaneously claim that they need to be compensated for the API development by pulling money from small developers without Netflix's clout and simultaneously give away your API to Netflix and others because you can't afford to lose them.

Again, this is silly. They can certainly have it both ways. It is completely reasonably to charge for something and not charge for something else.

It is a clear example of market dominance being giving some companies different and unfair competitive edge over others.

No, it's not. There is no market dominance. And we've discussed the rest.

I never claimed (or don't believe I claimed) it was solely about gaining a footholds but rather that their gatekeeper status creates an unequal playing field and prevents some categories of app from existing or adds unnecessary obstruction (Hey app).

I asked you "What competing apps and technologies are prevented from gaining a foothold in the market (not the platform) because of the policies addressed in the DMA as a result of "arbitrary" rules by Apple?" in response to your definition of market abuse as "Preventing competing apps and technologies from gaining a foothold on the platform by imposing arbitrary rules."

 

[mcnallym]

They are probably in the "reader" app exemption and Apple's rules are attempting to limit who is allowed to use that exemption. If your app doesn't qualify then you can't charge on your own website.

Apple also is trying to prevent linking to the website payment platform from within the app. This is to force users to leave the app, go to safari, then go back to the app manually - maybe typing in their password again. The EU and others are now clamping down on this because it is a "steering" measure designed not to make the user experience better but to make the experience of using a payment system other than the App Store worse.

so in other words they do not have to pay commission, but is not as good a user experience if use their own payment system.

well if user experience is the primary aim then surely one place to pay for all is far easier for me as a user then going off to 4 different payment places for 4 different apps?

I was respending to someone stating that developers HAVE to pay which means no alternative but to do so where you have agreed that is possible but not as user friendly as the developer.

is like saying I have to drive to my parents in the car. I can walk to the local train station, catch a train to change where can catch the train to Birmingham, then change to a local train out to the area then walk to my parents from local station.
I can do it but just damn site easier to drive the car.

 

[bcortens]

so in other words they do not have to pay commission, but is not as good a user experience if use their own payment system.

well if user experience is the primary aim then surely one place to pay for all is far easier for me as a user then going off to 4 different payment places for 4 different apps?

I was respending to someone stating that developers HAVE to pay which means no alternative but to do so where you have agreed that is possible but not as user friendly as the developer.

is like saying I have to drive to my parents in the car. I can walk to the local train station, catch a train to change where can catch the train to Birmingham, then change to a local train out to the area then walk to my parents from local station.
I can do it but just damn site easier to drive the car.

They do have to pay right now - unless you are a "reader" app. Any other App that doesn't pay is likely breaking Apple's rules and is at risk of losing access to their account.

It is easier to open a web browser from a link right in an App and Apple is being forced to allow that but they didn't want to. They wanted to steer developers and users to their own payment platform.

 

[bcortens]

Business reasons are still reasons and so, by definition, not arbitrary. That just a loaded word that you are trying to use to describe a normal business decision.

A business decision that is a result of market dominance and power that creates an uneven playing field. A company that is big enough can force Apple to give them a special deal but small developers can't get the same deal. This may be a business reason but that doesn't mean it doesn't create an unequal playing field.

Again, outside of the loaded language that you choose to use, you are describing a normal business decision. I've helped organize a market where food vendors paid a commission on sales and product vendors paid a flat fee for their location. Perfectly normal.

This is, again, not an analogous comparison, because this is more like some food vendors are so important that they get to pay nothing at all while other food vendors are less important so they have to pay a commission.

I don't know how any of those points rebut what I said.

You are going off the rails here. It's certainly a two way street, but that doesn't mean that the value the individual developers bring to the platform is equal to the value that they receive from Apple. I think an developer union would be interesting.

Again, this is silly. They can certainly have it both ways. It is completely reasonably to charge for something and not charge for something else.

No, it's not. There is no market dominance. And we've discussed the rest.

The value that 3rd party apps bring to iOS probably exceeds that which they receive from Apple... consider macOS, a market of wealthy high paying customers, and yet Apple did everything in their power (including signing a deal with hated Microsoft) to court developers to build apps for Mac OS X in the early 2000s. They knew that without developer support Mac OS X was DOA. If photoshop and Microsoft had said no, if they had refused to build Mac apps do you really think Mac OS X would have gained as much traction as it did? If all apps left iOS tomorrow iOS would shrivel quickly, if you told people that they would only be able to get all of their apps and games via google Android phones how many iPhones would Apple sell?

The install base of iOS in the EU is something around 33-35% which, given that smartphone subscriptions are around 450 million in Europe, is over 140 million people. Access to those 140 million customers requires going through Apple. That is a large enough population to qualify as dominant. No one cares about the hundreds of OS vendors that have less than 1000 customers because it isn't worth regulating access to those companies.

I asked you "What competing apps and technologies are prevented from gaining a foothold in the market (not the platform) because of the policies addressed in the DMA as a result of "arbitrary" rules by Apple?" in response to your definition of market abuse as "Preventing competing apps and technologies from gaining a foothold on the platform by imposing arbitrary rules."

Apologies - you are correct - I did say foothold.

 

[BaldiMac]

A business decision that is a result of market dominance and power that creates an uneven playing field. A company that is big enough can force Apple to give them a special deal but small developers can't get the same deal. This may be a business reason but that doesn't mean it doesn't create an unequal playing field.

Again, nothing but loaded language here. Small developers currently get a better deal that large developers (by revenue). And the reader app exception applies to large and small developers.

This is, again, not an analogous comparison, because this is more like some food vendors are so important that they get to pay nothing at all while other food vendors are less important so they have to pay a commission.

Weird how the analogy doesn't work when you deliberately choose to not make it work. In my analogy, food vendors are the developers that pay a commission and product vendors are developers that don't.

The value that 3rd party apps bring to iOS probably exceeds that which they receive from Apple... consider macOS, a market of wealthy high paying customers, and yet Apple did everything in their power (including signing a deal with hated Microsoft) to court developers to build apps for Mac OS X in the early 2000s. They knew that without developer support Mac OS X was DOA. If photoshop and Microsoft had said no, if they had refused to build Mac apps do you really think Mac OS X would have gained as much traction as it did? If all apps left iOS tomorrow iOS would shrivel quickly, if you told people that they would only be able to get all of their apps and games via google Android phones how many iPhones would Apple sell?

You shifted goalposts there. I said individually and then you argued collectively while ignoring that only 13% of developers pay a commission. Less than 2% pay the 30% commission.

The install base of iOS in the EU is something around 33-35% which, given that smartphone subscriptions are around 450 million in Europe, is over 140 million people. Access to those 140 million customers requires going through Apple. That is a large enough population to qualify as dominant. No one cares about the hundreds of OS vendors that have less than 1000 customers because it isn't worth regulating access to those companies.

Sure, but to use one of your favorite terms, that's an arbitrary definition of dominant. (And there are only 448 million people in the EU, so I doubt every single man, woman, and child in the EU has a smartphone. )

Assuming 70% of the EU population uses a smartphone, the number of iPhone users is closer to 95 million.

 

[mcnallym]

By choosing a smartphone, you are choosing the OS and the OS significantly controls the functionality of that smartphone whether it be related to app access, app store alternatives, browser engine alternatives, etc. Because there are only two major players (Apple and Google) controlling mobile OS, it is a regulatory matter. There were many computer makers in the 1990s but that didn’t mean Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS wasn’t a regulatory matter.

Very Happy with your answer as if you want to argue that you are also choosing to buy the OS when you choose the smartphone then you are also making the argument that people buying iPhones are choosing the ecosystem that Apple are putting in place with iOS, including its AppStore policies etc with all that entails.

in which case people buying iPhones have chosen the Apple Ecosystem when buying an iPhone. you are saying people are choosing iOS when they buy an iPhone with all that choice entails. After all there are 12 other mobile OS that can choose from if don’t want Apple.

coca-cola and Pepsi have a duopoly in the cola beverage market but don’t see anyone crying out for regulation there, and yes others have tried and failed miserably to get into the cola market over the years.

look up Peter kay and rola cola and you will see why failed and can gaurantee was due to coke and pepsi doing any nefarious.

same reason why those other 11 mobile os are not getting traction.

 

[mcnallym]

They do have to pay right now - unless you are a "reader" app. Any other App that doesn't pay is likely breaking Apple's rules and is at risk of losing access to their account.

It is easier to open a web browser from a link right in an App and Apple is being forced to allow that but they didn't want to. They wanted to steer developers and users to their own payment platform.

And that is NOT what the poster I responded to said,

they posted that developer HAVE to pay. no if, buts, maybes. developer have to pay FULLSTOP. You are changing the goal posts on what the original poster I reponded too.

the reader app exemption is about in app linking to external payment sites.

however since 2021 then developers have been able under App Store guidelines to contact customers outside of the app regarding external payment methods.

 

[transmaster]

If you look at the EU Apple's original sin in being and American based company, and even worse are very large and profitable American company. Spotify is a Swedish based music service so they are a "favorite son" of the EU so naturally they are going to side with it. I can understand where Apple is coming from if you are going to use our platform to operate on our service you are going to have to play by our rules. I come from a time when subscriptions were purposely difficult to cancel. The idea from these services was after awhile you would just give up. Apple changed that. Apple controlled the money so if you wanted to cancel a service you went to your Apple subscription settings and canceled it no games the money stopped. I also lived for many years in the Windows world and was out in the wild with subscriptions it was difficult to track down were you could cancel a subscription. It came to calling your credit card company and stopping payment there. People have a lot of choices in the smartphone world it is up to them to make that choice. I happen to like the Apple ecosystem. This is coming from a person who has been in the computer world for 50 years. Back than IBM ruled there was no internet, there was no ecommerce, I remember the birth of dial up connections. I remember the early dial up networks. I even remember the first spam, naturally a lawyer in San Francisco. I don't think they ever found the body. Believe me what Apple has built is really sweet and I resent politicians trying to ruin it.

 

[webkit]

Well yes it does. This is 2023 not 1990.

Well, no it doesn't. Just as Microsoft was declared to have a dominant position with Windows in 1990s despite there being many computer models, Apple and Google can absolutely be declared as having dominant positions with iOS and Android today despite there being many smartphone models.

Regardless, there are little to no anti trust violations to be found.

There are plenty of potential antitrust violations to be found but even if there are only one or two, they should be addressed, litigated, etc.

There has to be a finding, not some general “anti-trust” is good.

Of course there has to be "a finding" but having options does not mean those findings can't be valid. Again, simply having options does not negate antitrust laws.

 

[bcortens]

And that is NOT what the poster I responded to said,

they posted that developer HAVE to pay. no if, buts, maybes. developer have to pay FULLSTOP. You are changing the goal posts on what the original poster I reponded too.

the reader app exemption is about in app linking to external payment sites.

however since 2021 then developers have been able under App Store guidelines to contact customers outside of the app regarding external payment methods.

You are correct that there are some apps that don’t have to pay - but both of you were dealing in absolutes before - you implied apps didn’t have to pay, however most still do.

Apps could not link to external sites for payment until it was forced upon Apple, Apple will try and maintain dominance over payments at all costs because I suspect without it they would see a substantial cut in their rent seeking revenue.

 

[webkit]

Very Happy with your answer as if you want to argue that you are also choosing to buy the OS when you choose the smartphone then you are also making the argument that people buying iPhones are choosing the ecosystem that Apple are putting in place with iOS, including its AppStore policies etc with all that entails.

in which case people buying iPhones have chosen the Apple Ecosystem when buying an iPhone. you are saying people are choosing iOS when they buy an iPhone with all that choice entails. After all there are 12 other mobile OS that can choose from if don’t want Apple.

People are choosing the OS by the smartphone they purchase but that doesn’t necessarily mean they like all aspects of the OS whether we are talking about iOS or Android. Many people purchase Windows-based machines but that doesn’t mean they like all aspects of Windows or whatever tweaked version of Windows a computer maker may have offered. It certainly doesn’t mean an OS dominant company has a right to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

While there are various skins and ROMs available for Android, there are only two major players in the mobile OS market and those are Apple with iOS and Google with Android.

coca-cola and Pepsi have a duopoly in the cola beverage market but don’t see anyone crying out for regulation there, and yes others have tried and failed miserably to get into the cola market over the years.

look up Peter kay and rola cola and you will see why failed and can gaurantee was due to coke and pepsi doing any nefarious.

same reason why those other 11 mobile os are not getting traction.

People don't need to "cry out" for them as the laws already exist and if/when Coca-Cola and/or Pepsi violate antitrust laws by engaging in anticompetitive behavior (as has already been alleged for one or both of them several times over the years), they are/will be investigated and dealt with accordingly at some point. You are ignorant if you actually think antitrust regulations don't exist or haven't applied to other companies and industries.

 

[bcortens]

Again, nothing but loaded language here. Small developers currently get a better deal that large developers (by revenue). And the reader app exception applies to large and small developers.

Nothing but loaded language? Big companies are given a special deal by Apple. True or false?
(The reader exemption doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists because Amazon wasn't willing to pay Apple 30% of each ebook sale and otherwise was unwilling to bring the Kindle app to iOS.)
These special deals have an effect on the competitive landscape on iOS apps. True or false?

(Yes the reader exemption applies to small apps but only those in the "reader" category, which is defined the way it is explicitly because big companies wanted it defined that way).

Weird how the analogy doesn't work when you deliberately choose to not make it work. In my analogy, food vendors are the developers that pay a commission and product vendors are developers that don't.

What distinguishes a gaming app that makes money via subscription from Netflix? Why is the gaming app prevented from taking advantage of the reader exemption? The answer of course is because the reader exemption was defined in the way it was to make big companies happy, not for any technical reason.

You shifted goalposts there. I said individually and then you argued collectively while ignoring that only 13% of developers pay a commission. Less than 2% pay the 30% commission.

Individually each developer contributes little to Apple's iPhone sales totals that is true but ignores Network Effects and the importance of an enthusiastic sphere of indie developers to the health of the developer ecosystem.
To return more clearly to the point, you made the claim that Apple deserves compensation for creating the platform. My counterpoint is that without developers (collectively) Apple would not be as successful as it is, and that if Apple deservers compensation then so do the developers that help make the iPhone a success.

We can say with near certainty that the iPhone would not be a success without third party apps because we can see what happens to critically acclaimed platforms (windows phone, palm os, etc...) that don't have 3rd party developer support. They fail, and fail spectacularly.

Sure, but to use one of your favorite terms, that's an arbitrary definition of dominant. (And there are only 448 million people in the EU, so I doubt every single man, woman, and child in the EU has a smartphone. )

Assuming 70% of the EU population uses a smartphone, the number of iPhone users is closer to 95 million.

Your right on this, my source was talking about Europe as a whole not just the EU.

Dominant, not dominant, whatever, it is a large enough number of EU citizens that they feel they deserve some protection from Apple's decisions.



I actually didn't initially want Apple to be regulated like this, in my ideal world Apple would be an ethical gatekeeper that only limited Apps that were actually harmful and who had uniform, consistent, and ethical commission system for Apps that use their payment processing. Apple doesn't block scam apps or games that use gambling tricks to hook players, they do keep out things like alternative app launchers and window managers, emulators, automation tools etc... They also believe they are entitled to all revenue that occurs on their platform regardless of how much of that revenue was facilitated by their servers and infrastructure.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nothing but loaded language? Big companies are given a special deal by Apple. True or false?
(The reader exemption doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists because Amazon wasn't willing to pay Apple 30% of each ebook sale and otherwise was unwilling to bring the Kindle app to iOS.)

False. The reader exemption applies equally to big and small developers that meet the requirements.

These special deals have an effect on the competitive landscape on iOS apps. True or false?

False. Apps that compete with each other compete using the same rules. (with the notable exception of Netflix games)

What distinguishes a gaming app that makes money via subscription from Netflix? Why is the gaming app prevented from taking advantage of the reader exemption?

As I said before, the Netflix games is the exception to my argument. I completely agree that this exception should be removed or made available to anyone.

The answer of course is because the reader exemption was defined in the way it was to make big companies happy, not for any technical reason.

This is where you lose me. Why does there have to be a technical reason? That just a made up requirement that doesn't apply to any other business.

Individually each developer contributes little to Apple's iPhone sales totals that is true but ignores Network Effects and the importance of an enthusiastic sphere of indie developers to the health of the developer ecosystem.
To return more clearly to the point, you made the claim that Apple deserves compensation for creating the platform. My counterpoint is that without developers (collectively) Apple would not be as successful as it is, and that if Apple deservers compensation then so do the developers that help make the iPhone a success.

Developers do get compensation. A lot higher percentage than Apple. What are you talking about? 87% of them keep all the revenue that they may or may not generate through their iOS apps.

Dominant, not dominant, whatever, it is a large enough number of EU citizens that they feel they deserve some protection from Apple's decisions.

Fair enough. I've said it before, I completely respect the argument that you want to use the power of government to force people to do what you want. I disagree, but at least it's honest. The antitrust, dominant, anticompetitive, blah, blah arguments are just a way to rationalize that entitlement.

 

[mcnallym]

You are correct that there are some apps that don’t have to pay - but both of you were dealing in absolutes before - you implied apps didn’t have to pay, however most still do.

Apps could not link to external sites for payment until it was forced upon Apple, Apple will try and maintain dominance over payments at all costs because I suspect without it they would see a substantial cut in their rent seeking revenue.

I have been using the HDHomeRun system since before 1st Sept 2021 when then Reader App exemption came in and never had an option in-app to do the payment. HDHomeRun DVR launched in 2018 so there was no such Reader App exemption in place back then was there.

They have no link to the payment site inside the app or on the app page in the App Store and yet people were able to use this external payment without issue. All of the payment done on the website.
When the DVR Service contacts back to SiliconDust then see's the license and activates the DVR service.

Now SiliconDust could have put in-app purchases in place where yes they would have to use Apple Paymemt System but back in 2018 so well before any ruling simply did outside payment and no links inside the App.

That is a CHOICE for the developer. They can either do in-app purchasing and use Apple Payment System or keep purchasing outside of App on say that thing called a website. But that is like I say a CHOICE that the developer has to make, in-app or external purchasing. No App is FORCED to do in-app purchasing. And this was back in 2018 so 3 years before your Reader App exemption. SiliconDust CHOSE to do the External method and setup own payment.

So the only way that the developer HAS to use Apples Payment is if they have CHOSEN to use In-App purchasing rather then setup a website shop and do the purchasing there. Apple does not FORCE you to do In-App purchasing or are people going to start claiming that Apple forced you to do in-app purchasing and this Apples payment system.


Timescale for SiliconDust

2018 - InApp Purchasing and no communication to the customer about external payment either, or outside of app payment not using Apple Payment. SiliconDust use external payment
2021 - InApp Purchasing and reader-app exemption allows reader-apps to advertise in-app to external payments or use outside the App Payment and not use Apple Payment. Other App types remain same SiliconDust use external payment
2023 - Ninth Court of Appeals ruling that developers can advertise outside payment inside the Apps, not just reader-apps. So can use In App purchasing with Apple Payment or do outside payment and actually advertise in App. SiliconDust still no in-app links or anything but payment done on the website.

All those 2021 and 2023 rulings (I believe the 2023 ruling being appealed) meant is that could advertise a link to a website to visit to go do the payment firstly for reader-apps and then all apps. Not that could never use External Payment in the first place and now that can.

Give me one App that can not do external payment processing outside of the App. Not being able to link to it inside the App does not mean you cannot do external payment processing and skip Apples Payment system.

And why cannot use an in-app currency that can purchase outside the app and then use the purchased in-app currency to do the in-app purchase.

Easier not to do is not the same as cannot do

 

[NEPOBABY]

This is what is going to happen to EU citizens when side loading becomes a reality.

Families, especially old and young people, will be targeted with ads all over social media to download apps.

Millions of people will get fraud text messages asking them to download apps.

Those apps will look genuine. They will clone legit apps also.

And then those apps will rob, loot, blackmail and threaten many thousands of people.

Every day.

Do you think social media companies will block those ads? They won't. They want ad money even from the most hardened criminal gangs.

Do you think politicians will save you when they helped cause this? They won't, unless they are completely replaced or jailed for taking bribes from criminal groups.

I support the EU, sure. But they are corrupt, clueless and inept.

EU corruption scandal: MEP denies Qatar bribery after €1.5m seized

Eva Kaili, one of four suspects, is stripped of her role as vice-president of the European Parliament.

www.bbc.com

Their immigration policies have damaged the lives of citizens, harmed incomes, encouraged slavery and human trafficking, and resulted in the rise of the far right extremists and mass cyber crimes.

They basically want to do to your phones and personal security the same way they side loaded human trafficking into the European continent.

 

[webkit]

This is what is going to happen to EU citizens when side loading becomes a reality.

I'm sure that those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores will be able to handle it just as millions of Android, Mac, Windows, etc. users have been able to handle it. I also think Apple, with its vast talent and resources, should be able to create an iOS experience better than the others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't. Have faith in the $2.8T (USD) company.

 

[bcortens]

I'm sure that those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores will be able to handle it just as millions of Android, Mac, Windows, etc. users have been able to handle it. I also think Apple, with its vast talent and resources, should be able to create an iOS experience better than the others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't. Have faith in the $2.8T (USD) company.

I actually think the EU (and all countries really) should have an agency that is responsible for taking public requests to investigate unethical companies and ensuring that companies (Apple, Google) pull the signing certificates of said unethical companies.

Furthermore I think the EU should really ban some of the very common in-app purchase strategies (real money to in app currency is a scummy psychological practice, loot boxes should be illegal etc...)

 

[elvisimprsntr]

EU needs to focus on more pressing issues.

 

[bcortens]

I have been using the HDHomeRun system since before 1st Sept 2021 when then Reader App exemption came in and never had an option in-app to do the payment. HDHomeRun DVR launched in 2018 so there was no such Reader App exemption in place back then was there.

They have no link to the payment site inside the app or on the app page in the App Store and yet people were able to use this external payment without issue. All of the payment done on the website.
When the DVR Service contacts back to SiliconDust then see's the license and activates the DVR service.

Now SiliconDust could have put in-app purchases in place where yes they would have to use Apple Paymemt System but back in 2018 so well before any ruling simply did outside payment and no links inside the App.

That is a CHOICE for the developer. They can either do in-app purchasing and use Apple Payment System or keep purchasing outside of App on say that thing called a website. But that is like I say a CHOICE that the developer has to make, in-app or external purchasing. No App is FORCED to do in-app purchasing. And this was back in 2018 so 3 years before your Reader App exemption. SiliconDust CHOSE to do the External method and setup own payment.

So the only way that the developer HAS to use Apples Payment is if they have CHOSEN to use In-App purchasing rather then setup a website shop and do the purchasing there. Apple does not FORCE you to do In-App purchasing or are people going to start claiming that Apple forced you to do in-app purchasing and this Apples payment system.


Timescale for SiliconDust

2018 - InApp Purchasing and no communication to the customer about external payment either, or outside of app payment not using Apple Payment. SiliconDust use external payment
2021 - InApp Purchasing and reader-app exemption allows reader-apps to advertise in-app to external payments or use outside the App Payment and not use Apple Payment. Other App types remain same SiliconDust use external payment
2023 - Ninth Court of Appeals ruling that developers can advertise outside payment inside the Apps, not just reader-apps. So can use In App purchasing with Apple Payment or do outside payment and actually advertise in App. SiliconDust still no in-app links or anything but payment done on the website.

All those 2021 and 2023 rulings (I believe the 2023 ruling being appealed) meant is that could advertise a link to a website to visit to go do the payment firstly for reader-apps and then all apps. Not that could never use External Payment in the first place and now that can.

Give me one App that can not do external payment processing outside of the App. Not being able to link to it inside the App does not mean you cannot do external payment processing and skip Apples Payment system.

And why cannot use an in-app currency that can purchase outside the app and then use the purchased in-app currency to do the in-app purchase.

Easier not to do is not the same as cannot do

Based on my reading of the App Store guidelines, that app HDHomeRun may be breaking App Store guidelines ... it 'might' meet the guidelines under section 3.1.3 App Store Guidelines

Whether or not an App gets away with external processing, doesn't mean that it is not against the guidelines. The guidelines for apps that are allowed to have unlock-able content that was purchased outside the app is limited and restricted.

 

[bcortens]

False. The reader exemption applies equally to big and small developers that meet the requirements.

Okay - I will grant you that the reader app exemption applies equally, but my point is that the reader exemption should not exist. It only exists because of big company lobbying.

False. Apps that compete with each other compete using the same rules. (with the notable exception of Netflix games)

Again - if you use the 'same rules' qualifier then you're right, however, I do not believe that the reasons given for the existence of the different rules for different apps are justified. As I'll discuss below, I think that when single companies have so much control over a section of the economy that it is perfectly acceptable for regulators to check to see if the rules are justifiable (The EU seems to agree that the rules aren't justified).

As I said before, the Netflix games is the exception to my argument. I completely agree that this exception should be removed or made available to anyone.

This is where you lose me. Why does there have to be a technical reason? That just a made up requirement that doesn't apply to any other business.

Developers do get compensation. A lot higher percentage than Apple. What are you talking about? 87% of them keep all the revenue that they may or may not generate through their iOS apps.

I do not believe Apple has done anything to deserve a cut of app revenue that does not rely upon their payment processing system - and furthermore I believe Apple should not be allowed to force Apps to use their payment system. I believe this because fundamentally Apple needs 3rd party developers (collectively) just as much as 3rd party developers need Apple. This is a question without an easy answer because it is impossible to run the counterfactual - what would 3rd party developers do in a world without the ability to deploy apps for iPhone and what would the iPhone sales be without 3rd party developers. I would guess that Windows Phone might have succeeded in being the 2nd largest platform instead of Apple. Apple has loyal fans and might still have managed to make a go of it with their restrictive web-apps only but I don't think they would be as big as they are.

Fair enough. I've said it before, I completely respect the argument that you want to use the power of government to force people to do what you want. I disagree, but at least it's honest. The antitrust, dominant, anticompetitive, blah, blah arguments are just a way to rationalize that entitlement.

I agree that this is our fundamental disagreement.

I fundamentally believe that any company or group of companies that controls a large enough portion of any market should be looked at by governments which represent the actual people of the country. If a market is important enough, which the mobile software market is, yes I do support government intervention to make sure that the gatekeepers aren't artificially limiting competition. That they aren't doing things to preference their own products and services over competitors.
For example, the constant nagging Apple does to sign up for Apple One, or sign up for music, or TV+ or Arcade, are examples of anti-competitive behaviour as the platform owner and should be stopped. The fact that any fitness company competing with Apple Fitness has a 15-30% revenue disadvantage is anti-competitive. The fact that for the longest time external links to purchase mechanisms outside the app was banned is anti-competitive.

As I've said before, I would prefer the App Store exist as the only way to get apps but that it exist in a more benign fashion, one in which Apple was more impartial about what app types it allows, one in which Apple only used their power to keep out malicious apps. However Apple does more than that, they ban categories of Apps that modify the system (springboard modification) even if those Apps have no scammy code in them at all.

Apple brought this on themselves and I believe this unhappy compromise, side-loading and third party app stores, is a result of Apple refusing to properly adapt.

 

[NEPOBABY]

I'm sure that those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores will be able to handle it just as millions of Android, Mac, Windows, etc. users have been able to handle it.

Those OS platforms are not 'handling it'.

There is several billions of dollars each year being scammed and stolen from Mac, Windows and Android users.

All going into the pockets of terrible crooks in India and the far east. Then those same crooks launder the money through shell companies and buy up all the properties in your neighbourhoods and pay off your elected leaders.

Then they charge you obscene rents.

Theft and then another theft on top of that.

And they are coming for every last cent and penny they can get out of you. I really mean that. If you understand these people then you know they will never tire. They have friends in all tech firms who help them.

They have many millions of very poor people in their countries that they can hire. They can make those poor people sit at computers all day every day every month and every year until they have bled all the money they can from you.

They will never stop. They don't even have to pay the poor people they hire to scam you all. They can use them for crimes and then boot them on to the street.

The only way to stop them is much stronger security than we have today, not weaker security as those bribed EU officials are forcing though.

I cannot be more clear than this. These regulators have been bought off. They won't listen to the companies and they won't listen to their own security agencies and police forces. They are completely bribed and bought off by criminals with dark money.

 

[BaldiMac]

I do not believe Apple has done anything to deserve a cut of app revenue that does not rely upon their payment processing system - and furthermore I believe Apple should not be allowed to force Apps to use their payment system.

So, the only value that Apple provides to developers is payment processing? That's a ridiculous statement.

I believe this because fundamentally Apple needs 3rd party developers (collectively) just as much as 3rd party developers need Apple.

These is one of those arguments that falls apart when you consider it in any other context. A store needs products just as much as products need a store. Does that mean the store doesn't provide any value other than payment processing?

I fundamentally believe that any company or group of companies that controls a large enough portion of any market should be looked at by governments which represent the actual people of the country. If a market is important enough, which the mobile software market is, yes I do support government intervention to make sure that the gatekeepers aren't artificially limiting competition.

So do I. I just believe that the DMA and the EU's overall strategy so far is a poor way to accomplish their goals.

The fact that any fitness company competing with Apple Fitness has a 15-30% revenue disadvantage is anti-competitive.

Alternatively, Apple has invested billions in creating a platform for Apple Fitness, that a competitor gets to take advantage of for a mere 15-30% of their revenue. Seems like a good deal to me.

Investing to give yourself an advantage in a market isn't anticompetitive. It is competing.

As I've said before, I would prefer the App Store exist as the only way to get apps but that it exist in a more benign fashion, one in which Apple was more impartial about what app types it allows, one in which Apple only used their power to keep out malicious apps. However Apple does more than that, they ban categories of Apps that modify the system (springboard modification) even if those Apps have no scammy code in them at all.

Apple brought this on themselves and I believe this unhappy compromise, side-loading and third party app stores, is a result of Apple refusing to properly adapt.

I understand that you want Apple to be forced to meet your preferences. Blaming them or accusing them of wrongdoing because they don't is silly.

 

[webkit]

I actually think the EU (and all countries really) should have an agency that is responsible for taking public requests to investigate unethical companies and ensuring that companies (Apple, Google) pull the signing certificates of said unethical companies.

Furthermore I think the EU should really ban some of the very common in-app purchase strategies (real money to in app currency is a scummy psychological practice, loot boxes should be illegal etc...)

I assume agencies already exist in many countries to some degree; something similar to the FTC in the United States.

 

[webkit]

Those OS platforms are not 'handling it'.

There is several billions of dollars each year being scammed and stolen from Mac, Windows and Android users.

And there are scams and scam apps on iOS too. Creating an artificial bubble is not necessarily the answer. Allowing more open competition and pushing companies like Apple to innovate by using their wealth, talent and resources to create a "stronger" product and better experience than others for BOTH those who choose to sideload or use alternative app stores and those who don't can be a better solution.