They would lose about 100 Billion year over year by just chopping those numbers off a spreadsheet. There would be an unquantifiable impact to global sales as a result of negative PR as well.
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
They would lose about 100 Billion year over year by just chopping those numbers off a spreadsheet. There would be an unquantifiable impact to global sales as a result of negative PR as well.
No wonder Gruber thinks like that. To him everything that comes out of Apple HQ is gospel. I would do the same if my career was built around having friendly relations with Apple execs.
if Steve Jobs was alive he would have pulled out of EU and said enough of this BS.
Laws and regulations are fine, but the penalty being based on worldwide revenue is wrong on its face. EU tried to do some good here but took it just a little too far. If they have the means to do so Apple should just not pay the fine. They should also stop selling in any way that sends revenue to EU or its members. I'm sure if people in the EU want iPhones they'll figure out how to buy them.
Don't get me wrong I know a lot of people think Apple is wrong in this matter. That's fine - you don't have to buy Apple products. The EU could even choose to ban Apple products. But telling them how to run their business is wrong.
Don't get me wrong I know a lot of people think Apple is wrong in this matter. That's fine - you don't have to buy Apple products. The EU could even choose to ban Apple products. But telling them how to run their business is wrong.
App Store Revenue. Revenue in all sales and products is 24 %
I think the problem is, Current AppStore: the fairness stems in free apps being free but once you make money from digital distribution (such as downloads or in game purchases) a percentage is charged. The platform .50 fee is because they can’t know if someone is using a payment system or charging users without human review. So I think they crunched some numbers and felt people like it was a compromise. Nothing that you are only charged after the first million if your app install metrics. Or something similar to that affect - under the new rules. Small business and new companies don’t have to pay until they expand. With a well guided update system, and a user charged fee, they could subside this cost easily (in theory). Of course, we’re talking about the fairness. Is it fair?
Windows OS: install any application use any SDK. We collect nothing. Venders like NVidia may use developer tools that Windows releases. Any app can be installed without any charge… (minus signing certificate verifications for executables). Windows is not Open Source. Use our store pay revenues (excluding physical goods).
Android: Pay the developer fee (one time), use Google Play and get charged 10% of all revenue (except physical goods). You can download and install APK’s (executables) (signed or not) for free. Android OS is open sourced.
Apple Mac/iOS: Pay the developer fee yearly, get access to tools and api’s. Use our SDK’s. Mac can install signed (and technically unsigned) apps for free without charging fees. Use the Mac Store and get charged a fee (except physical goods). iOS use the App Store or use Testdrive, or enterprise certificate provisioning. Pay royalties on all revenue of 10-30%. Apple source code is gated to them and security researchers (binaries).
I think EU and Developers have a problem. Apple’s licensing doesn’t seem to be in congruent with the market standards. When they look at the grand scheme of their users they believe Apple has an unfair advantage and is taking advantage based on similar assessments and assertions I performed above.
When companies get so big that they can treat fines as the cost of doing business then worldwide revenue is the only measure they understand.
They give it away as those apps are selling on the AppStore.
By leaving the app store, they are going to lose money on "giving" away membership for only $99 a year.
It was/is mutually beneficial to both parties to charge only $99 for membership, while making money on sales 30% or less cut. Apple most likely doesn't want to charge more than the $99 yearly fee as it makes it very accessible to developers and startups to make something for the AppStore. .50 past the first million makes it possible for people to still give away their apps if they wish. But, if it is successful, they pay Apple back for that success. It's their IP at the end of the day.
"from link above -
The idea that the entire CTF is disallowed under the DMA is an argument that the DMA disallows a company from monetizing access to its own platform and IP. EC fans may be surprised to hear this but the EC is a capitalist body. I really don’t think they want to send a message to the world that the EU will strip companies of their own platforms. As Jebelli writes in an aside in his thread:
The crybaby Spotifys in the EU have already gotten a lot from the EC protection racket, including a large number of huge concessions in Apple’s DMA compliance plan. Not paying anything to Apple under any condition is all they’ll settle for though."
Apple wouldn't loose all of the revenue.
Most of the regulation is on Phone iOS store.
and people will smuggle phones into EU easily.
i think Apple should try not selling iPhone in EU.
if Apple doesn't push back then EU will force apple to share their processor technology with competitors.
make iOS/MacOS open source
all tablets and laptops should be water resistant.
Maybe, what’s the taxes Apple Pay’s on that? vat, income etc? Because that would be the EU effective number if apple left.
"Europe" is 24%. Includes countries like the UK, Switzerland, and the Middle East which aren't in the EU.
are they going to "govern" what car i drive, how long i drive, what i should eat, what i should drink ?
are they going to govern by giving me a weekly menu ?
VAT is never part a the revenue reported by companies. It's a tax paid by the customers.
Except all reader apps, and all physical goods apps are charged nothing if you stick with the existing system. They pay only the annual fee.
I've long bemoaned Apple's system as far as I can tell the current system incentivizes only the worst monetization practices in Apps which seem to help Apple pad out its bottom line with unethical micro-transactions in games.
They shouldn't charge for IP licensing because they already don't. The claim that the CTF is for the IP smells like a lie (even if it isn't) because they already don't charge all apps that earn revenue from Apple's IP.
Except that Pay royalties on all revenue isn't true, physical goods and services apps as well as streaming reader style apps use just as much of Apple's IP as any other app but pay nothing.
If Apple wants to charge a licensing scheme that is fair it has to apply to everyone and it never has.
they just want money, EU has created a new business model to generate revenue by imposing fines on American tech companies.
We do have car safety regulations, limitations on commercial driver time on road w/o rest and food safety regulations, yes.
This is called "civilized society", and you are benefiting enormously from it whether you realize it or not.
Not about device sales. It’s about commerce in general. Including e-commerce. Even in the US we now pay sales tax on many online transactions. And so the government has a say in what we can and cannot buy even online / digital goods.
The US is imposing a ban of TikTok! And lots of Americans on here are talking about the EU being overly regulated. LOL
These are confirmed numbers?
I could see that, but they offer the OS free - maybe because they monetize the OS and APIs developed for gaming and developers through AppStore Revenue.
What money are they losing? If Spotify is in or outside of the App Store either way they pay Apple only the $99 per year. So which money would they lose by not charging the CTF?
Their IP that they don't charge for in sooooooo many situations. They only want to charge Apps that aren't willing to obey them and stay in their store. It's steering.
I actually don't have a problem with monetizing their IP, what I have a problem with is them claiming that is what they are doing when they have so many exceptions (reader apps, free apps under the old terms, apps selling physical goods and services etc...) that it is clearly not them trying to monetize their IP.
If there was a flatter structure where ALL apps had to give Apple say 5% of revenue regardless of how it is earned or even something like the CTF with a flat per download fee (capped at some % of revenue) I could see that passing muster in the EU. But that fee would have to apply worldwide to Apps inside and outside the store for it to be fair.
Only charging Apps that accept the new terms is where Apple gets in trouble. Only charging Apps in the EU where the same app outside of the EU would pay apple nothing is also going to get Apple in trouble. Claiming it's an IP license when they let so many monetize the use of their IP for free is going to get Apple in trouble.
LOL the FDA, DEA, SEC, CPSC and every DMV in the United States already do those things!
I think Apple was waiting for this so they could appeal it in a higher court and maybe get parts of DMA removed.
Yes, but if Apple stopped selling in that country that tax would no longer be collectible on those products as they are no longer sold.