We’ve tried to explain our thoughts as well. These thoughts just haven’t been understood. This is not good legislation. No amount of lipstick on a pig will make this legislation any better than lousy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm from EU, but this is overreaching from EU. Just a bunch of ****s. I do not support these types of regulations, and EU much more present issues to solve. And don't tell me they have enough personnel, and this does not affect it. They clearly can't deal with real important issues.
Not really. We often confuse the small subset of online users with the much larger ste of people who just use the damn thing.
I remember those days. Why pay for an app when the ipa could be found for free with a quick Google search.
Yes, there was a lot of cool stuff and I bought some neat things that made my iPhone better, but I also remember developers crying about piracy. At least back then the hassles with jailbreaking made it a hobbyist thing, not mainstream. True sideloading will make it easier for the average user and developers will need to react in ways to protect their apps. I suspect much more subscriptions and in app purchases as a way to protect their revenue, and some small developers may simply vanish.
It is not what Apple thinks is important. The Apple compliance department will certify that it is compliant. The EU will investigate and inform the findings to Apple. Apple can make the changes to comply or cop the fine.
The EU will take no further action. Apple will be able to sell zero iPhones and will lose all the income. There may be class action suits (or their equivalent in the EU) due to any issues arising out of non-availability of the Appstore. Apple can never sell anything in the EU because of the loss of reputation.
They have to figure out how to accomplish what the EU wants as well as what Apple wants and convince the EU that that is the best option for the customers as well as competitors. If you see closely, the DMA does not talk about the customers. It only talks about the competition. So, Apple should be mindful of that. Also, it cannot hoodwink the EU as they are not gullible like its customers using privacy as a reason for all of its shortcomings.
Yes, agree. But there will be several buyers and it is not important who the buyer is. Apple will lose the revenue that is trying to protect right now and that is significant.
On the day Apple had a workshop with the EU and the developers, there was a tweet by someone that said that the EU is not looking at Apple to notarize the apps. I have not heard of it again. If that is the case, these issues will be moot.
I am sure there are several companies ready to run the Appstore. Even with the draconian CTF, there are already several 3rd party app stores coming up.
The points are clear. Apple is acting as if they are clear. Once the EU start applying fines, Apple will get clarity automatically.
Not sure how piracy will happen.
Apple need not worry about all those issues. Just ensure that it has the best review process, it treats developers fairly, and treats them with respect. Then, the developers will not leave the Appstore. Why would they? After all it provides them the maximum exposure. Then sideloading will be an issue for a very few special apps that Apple does not anyway allow in the Appstore.
Agreed. Apple can close the Appstore in the EU. However, Tim Cook will have to exit and the new CEO will immediately bring the Appstore back to EU. It is a business. Apple is not as principled as you portray it to be. We know how much it is bending in China. Yes, they will lose some Appstore revenue (an assumption that could prove to be wrong). No Board will tell the CEO to pull out of a country just to avoid complying with the laws (especially a first world country law) and cop a loss of a quarter of its revenue and earnings. For about 20 billion dollars revenue in China, Apple is practically kissing Chinese government's ass. Europe accounts for nearly 27% of its revenue while the it accounts for 7% of Appstore revenue. These changes could result in 0.001% of Appstore revenue loss. Closing the Appstore means it will lose a total of 27% revenue. Not happening.
Okay.
Not sure why this is a point. I am not arguing about this issue at all. I just said that the way Apple handles this case may have ramifications on the US DOJ vs Apple case. That is all.
What's the difference between the EU fining Apple for breaking EU law and Apple taking a cut of app developer's sales? Apple is acting like a mafia, demanding a cut or else shutting down your business. Who are they to capitalize someone else's success?
True, but when an app is installed, the notarization process reveals who created the app: maybe charge per notarization and not per install. Like say $450 or something… each update, or each notarization. It’s fair and across all apps. And it wouldn’t be the $.50 per install after a million. Maybe do some sort of storage fee as well.
Any data to support the assertion that Android users find it difficult to shift to iPhones?
According to Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP), the percentage of iPhone buyers who were previously Android users in the US fell from 15% in 2022 to 13% in 2023, though this is still higher than 2020 and 2021.
Android switching to iPhone highest level since 2018 - 9to5Mac
Users on Android switching to iPhone hits a 5-year high in the US as Apple says the rate is even higher in other countries.
9to5mac.com
Imagine how many more Android users would move to iPhones if the changes come into effect?
Overpriced... dude seriously, you made me laugh. You sound like someone who doesn't like Apple and anything they do. Why are you even here? Serious question.
The EU “Leaders” are a bunch of corrupt, unelected,fat cats just looking to line their pockets. The fact they want to tax worldwide revenue tells you all you need to know. Their arrogance and corruption knows no bounds.
You can't tell the difference between two corporations squabbling over a business deal and a government backed by guns, police, and the authority to lock you up? Apple can't fine people zillions of dollars on a whim backed by the authority to put people in prison.
Who are the app developers to capitalize on Apple's success? If they don't like the deals they get from Apple, they can stick to Android. Apple got to the position they're in by offering superior products that people want. They didn't hold a gun to developers' heads and demand they hand over all their tech and money.
The EEA is about European commerce; so there can be a case made that limiting app stores is having negative economic impacts to users, but it is primarily business interests being represented (e.g. ability of businesses to target ubiquitous consumer platforms limited by platform/store terms and review processes and economic models)
Its not anything approaching "citizen rights"
I think we're both taking this hyperbole to extremes that will ultimately go nowhere. Let's take a step back, and look at the situation for what it actually is.
Apple needs these developers for the iPhone to succeed. They even based their ads on the vibrant software ecosystem available, "There's an App for that."
While doing that, Apple has created terms that are hostile to these same App developers. There are fees imposed for software development, high hardware costs, and on top of that they demand a cut of sales. If you don't like it, leave, right?
Except there is nowhere to go. If I want to sell to my iPhone-using customers, I have to do it through Apple. There is no alternative. That's the issue that Europe has taken with Apple and developed the DMA to resolve.
Am I glad they developed an ecosystem I can sell to? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be compensated for that? Without a doubt. Except, I already paid them. I bought the hardware, the mac, the phone. I paid their developer fee. On top of that, they want a cut of the money I make with the tools I bought from them?
It's like my landlord demanding rent AND a % of money made under their roof.
I'd go even further and say that it's fairly easy for a company like Apple to meet that zone that is comfortably in between being overly generous and taking it straight up to the line. Not 'more than' complying, not barely complying, just complying.
I agree with you that testing the absolute limits and minimum requirements of the DMA will be interesting to see as approaches will inevitably be tested, I just don't see why it would be the responsibility of a regulatory body to do this in the hypothetical on behalf of a multi-billion company, nor as you acknowledge even in their interest.
It would be absolutely impossible, let alone stifling and incredibly expensive, in short unworkable, to cover every possibility in primary legislation or even secondary guidance. I'm not pretending the DMA is perfect, but I think anyone who pretends that it would ever be possible to be super specific in what it tries to do while leaving enough freedom and flexibility to not be outdated within a year is either being disingenuous or severely underestimating the scale of the challenge.
I fundamentally think regulation needs to be necessary and proportionate. We can disagree over the specifics here, but I don't think the argument gets tossed aside as such. Rather, I believe it is a fair observation that game consoles do not have the same impact or importance for digital markets in terms of functionality (though it's a computer, so if they can do more, let's reassess), prevalence or in how they're being used. In other words, there is less necessity to regulate, so applying the DMA wouldn't be proportionate.
Smartphones are quickly becoming people's primary electronic device and, in some cases, their only one. I doubt we can say the same for consoles, which are likely going to be a second, third, fourth or fifth device. They are unlikely to enable the breadth of economic exchanges and services that smartphones do.
I'd personally welcome more choice on consoles, but standing on principle without recognising the broader environment only gets us so far.
Last edited:
They don‘t tax worldwide revenue. They just threaten to punitively fine repeated and lasting ciolations of the law.
To be fair, percentage rents are a thing in commercial leases.
That said, they are nowhere near 30% of revenue.
The products you’re selling will likely not be limited to work with (run on) your landlord’s products.
Your landlord won‘t make you do your payment processing through them.
And they’ll probably not prevent you from even mentioning alternative purchasing options (such as your web store) in most draconian terms.
While we‘re at that…
And I would really like to add the same for the frequent comparisons drawn between Apple‘s App Store and other types of stores - failing to take into account market concentration , entry barriers and consumers‘ ability to switch (short term).
The App Store isn’t an apt comparison to a Walmart. And neither to a grocery store selling sweet cookies to consumers at the local mall.
apple has millions of developers and doesn’t not have to know-tow to the millions. If you don’t want to buy an overpriced Ferrari then don’t purchase one. The App Store isn’t food, air or water. Do t use it if it’s that hostile.
True. At least IRL, I would have the option to move down the street to a space that doesn't charge percentage rent, or has a more favorable breakpoint for it. I would still be able to serve my customers.
In the Apple world, there's nowhere to move to. Like a board game where one player owns all the spaces with street names. What's that game called? With the little plastic houses and passing Go?
Given how many people depend on cars to get work and earn a living…
…nor is it an apt comparison to…
…a Ferrari store.
Well the poster was discussing high fees etc. nobody has oay those fees if you don’t want to use the App Store. Exactly the same as not buying an overpriced Ferrari - lest anyone complain about the price.
Seems like the definitions of high priced etc are just a suggestion.
I need a car, but I don't have to buy a Ferrari. I can buy a VW, a Toyota, if I'm feeling fancy I can spend on an Audi or even a Porsche.
What're the options for iOS App Distribution?
He was also speaking of "tools" to earn money and his landlord's premises (In other words: requisites to make a living)
How often and what percentage of Ferraris are used as tools to make a living?
And how many competing car brands are there to choose from as work cars, in addition to Ferraris?
👉 Do you really think that's an apt comparison?
Well, we can still agree to disagree.
It’s about not forking over money with doing a transaction where you have a complaint about it being overpriced. Or moving in to a plan b with a strategy you can live with.
Android and web apps and websites. If I want to watch Netflix, options abound. To buy a Ferrari, not so much.
You do have a choice. It's called Android. You can write software and sell to Android users all day long. Why do you think you have a right to sell to iOS users, who are a minority of smartphone users? I don't understand this thought process that assumes you have a right to sell to another company's customers, using that company's intellectual property AND resources, without compensating them for use of said intellectual property and resources.
Some questions for you:
- I have a digital-only PS5 (i.e. it does not have a disk drive - I can literally only buy and play games purchased from the digital Playstation store.). Do you have a right to sell to me? Should the EU be forcing Sony to allow downloading games from websites so I can play your game? If so, should you have to pay Sony anything?
- Tesla sells a monthly subscription to its "Full Self Driving" feature in the car. If I develop software that allows the car to "drive itself", do I have a right to sell it to Tesla customers and install it on their cars without compensating Tesla?
- Peloton sells a subscription to its exercise classes using its hardware. Should they be forced to allow Apple Fitness classes to run on their Bikes and Treadmills? Does Apple have a right to sell to Peloton's customers?
First off apologies for replying to the second part of your argument separately. Life, as they say, got in the way.
Let me also say that I really appreciate your civil and thoughtful contributions, even though or probably because I don't always agree with you.
While I don't disagree with your overall argument, I'm not sure why it should matter in the context of the DMA.
The primary concern aren't closed ecosystems per so as shown by many, including yourself, pointing at consoles being able to continue operating a closed and sandboxed ecosystem.
I don't want to engage in too much hyperbole, but I think we can agree that smartphones have come quite a long way from the mid-2000s, and so have all forms of digital commerce. If someone had told me in 2004 that 20 years later I would do most of my everyday personal computing on my phone, I would have been sceptical at least, now Apple and Google basically control access to consumers in a way Microsoft never did.
From Apple's point of view it must of course be frustrating to have your business model disrupted despite (mostly) sticking to legal requirements, but when the world changes, the law must change with it. What is the alternative?
In terms of economic success, Apple clearly made the right decisions. I just don't believe its locked down nature is influencing anyone but a comparably small number of users. I bet that if you surveyed a representative group of iPhone users, 'because I can only buy apps from the App Store' would not be a major driver.
I find it hard to not argue that the walled garden 'traps' users. Apple says at much itself in all the materials that were disclosed in legal proceedings.
Of course you're not trapped in the strictest sense of the term, but network effects and feature lock in are real, even if you can of course leave at any time.
It's not just Apple, of course, and that's what is being missed here so often in conversations about the DMA. This is not just about Apple. In many ways it isn't even primarily about Apple, even if MacRumors coverage may suggest otherwise. Think WhatsApp, for example, and how dominant it is in Europe. It's basically impossible for anyone to compete unless interoperability is enforced.
In any case, I think the DMA is a good idea to keep the door open to competition and at least have a theoretical option to not be beholden to just two companies when it comes to which software we can use on our devices. More than lower prices, which may or may not happen, this is the primary win for me. Successful competitors may emerge, they may not, but at least there's a chance.
Let me also say that I really appreciate your civil and thoughtful contributions, even though or probably because I don't always agree with you.
While I don't disagree with your overall argument, I'm not sure why it should matter in the context of the DMA.
The primary concern aren't closed ecosystems per so as shown by many, including yourself, pointing at consoles being able to continue operating a closed and sandboxed ecosystem.
I don't want to engage in too much hyperbole, but I think we can agree that smartphones have come quite a long way from the mid-2000s, and so have all forms of digital commerce. If someone had told me in 2004 that 20 years later I would do most of my everyday personal computing on my phone, I would have been sceptical at least, now Apple and Google basically control access to consumers in a way Microsoft never did.
From Apple's point of view it must of course be frustrating to have your business model disrupted despite (mostly) sticking to legal requirements, but when the world changes, the law must change with it. What is the alternative?
In terms of economic success, Apple clearly made the right decisions. I just don't believe its locked down nature is influencing anyone but a comparably small number of users. I bet that if you surveyed a representative group of iPhone users, 'because I can only buy apps from the App Store' would not be a major driver.
I find it hard to not argue that the walled garden 'traps' users. Apple says at much itself in all the materials that were disclosed in legal proceedings.
Of course you're not trapped in the strictest sense of the term, but network effects and feature lock in are real, even if you can of course leave at any time.
It's not just Apple, of course, and that's what is being missed here so often in conversations about the DMA. This is not just about Apple. In many ways it isn't even primarily about Apple, even if MacRumors coverage may suggest otherwise. Think WhatsApp, for example, and how dominant it is in Europe. It's basically impossible for anyone to compete unless interoperability is enforced.
In any case, I think the DMA is a good idea to keep the door open to competition and at least have a theoretical option to not be beholden to just two companies when it comes to which software we can use on our devices. More than lower prices, which may or may not happen, this is the primary win for me. Successful competitors may emerge, they may not, but at least there's a chance.
Why does Apple have the right to dictate who I can and cannot sell my software to? I'm not a subsidiary of Apple. If my customers use iPhones, I want to make software for them. Supply wants to meet demand.
It's hard to believe that someone can patronize more than one business, but I'll bite. I did compensate them. I bought their computer to make software since I can't use my Windows machine for it. I bought their phone to test it on since I can't use a Samsung for it. I pay annually for a developer account to access the tools and information I need. I've paid significantly - if they undercharged me, that's their mistake.
Now for your questions, collapsed below to save space.
I don't see why not. I am not affiliated with or at odds with Sony. Ideally, yes, you should be able to use your PlayStation browser to download and play my software. I would be more than happy to pay Sony for development hardware and software tools - buying tools is a reasonable cost of doing business. I already bought tools from Apple.
Yes. Aftermarket car features have been a thing for decades. I can roll my car into my local Best Buy and get a new stereo, head unit with CarPlay, backup camera, and more without paying a dime to my auto manufacturer.
Isn't it funny that some Tesla models support Steam? You can buy and use software from a third-party storefront right from the driver's seat. It's wild.
You can already install third-party software on Peloton since they're Android-based. Partnering with Apple would be a great business move for Peloton, as would access to more applications. Ethically, yes, Pelotons should be open to external software, and Apple should have a right to sell to Peloton customers. Peloton does not own their customers.
Some of this is taking these points to an extreme. A game console, a car, and a cycling machine are appliances, not general purpose computers. Meanwhile our mobile phones have largely replaced general purpose computers in our lives. That's the difference here. I use an Xbox to play games, a car to drive, and a peloton to get in some exercise.
Meanwhile, people buy phones to do everything. Nobody is editing video, creating a spreadsheet or making music on a Peloton.