5 ms·

Dutch watchdog finds Apple app store payment rules anti-competitive – sources

61 points by the-dude 5y ago

ksec 5y ago
This is currently listed as Dupe, so where is the / original other submission?
the-dude 5y ago
Dutch source only, sorry. The Dutch Consumer & Market Authority (ACM) is demanding that Apple amend the unreasonable terms in the App Store that apply to dating app providers. Dating app providers now have no free choice of payment system for purchases made in the dating app by consumers. [suspended]. If Apple does not change the unreasonable conditions within two months, it must pay a penalty of 5 million euros per week with a maximum of 50 million euros. In this way the ACM wants to quickly improve Apple's unreasonable terms for dating app providers. Martijn Snoep, chairman of the ACM: "Some app providers depend on Apple's App Store and Apple is abusing that. Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position. That's why Apple has to take the interests of app providers seriously and work with reasonable conditions. We are enforcing that now. Protecting people and businesses from the abuse of market power in the digital economy is one of our most important tasks." What does Apple need to change? Apple must adjust the conditions of access to the Dutch App Store for dating app providers. Dating app providers must be able to use other payment systems in addition to Apple's payment system on the App Store. In addition, dating app providers should be allowed to refer in their app to payment options outside the app. [suspended] What's going on? To use the App Store, app providers pay $99 per year. Nearly 85% of app providers pay only this fee. These are small companies, but also large companies like Amazon, Booking or Uber. If an app provider wants to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app - such as dating apps - Apple imposes additional conditions. [suspended]. This applies to just over 15% of app providers. [suspended]. The ACM finds that the conditions are disproportionate to the additional payment service provided. Also, the terms are not necessary to maintain the App Store. Therefore, the ACM states that the terms and conditions are unreasonable and contrary to the competition rules. Dating Apps There are several dating services on the Dutch market that offer their services through an app. Since most consumers have an Android smartphone or an iPhone, dating apps mainly use the Google Play Store and Apple's App Store. To have the widest possible reach, dating apps should therefore be present in both these app stores. After all, consumers also want to be able to reach consumers with a different type of smartphone. Because on the iPhone dating apps can only be offered through the App Store, dating app providers are very dependent on Apple. Therefore, dating app providers have no choice but to accept the conditions of Apple. Therefore, the ACM finds that Apple has a dominant position. ACM and the Digital Economy The digital economy is an important theme for the ACM. People and businesses must be protected against online deception and market power. To tackle abuses of dominant positions, the ACM conducts investigations and can impose sanctions on companies, including fines and charges under penalty payments. In addition, the ACM is in favor of the upcoming adaptation of European rules requiring large companies and platforms to provide access to their platform or technology. In addition, the ACM has issued, among other things, a guideline 'protection of the online consumer'. This guide is based on European consumer rules and indicates where online temptation turns into deception. The guidelines form the basis for investigation and enforcement by the ACM. In this way the ACM also makes online markets work well for people and businesses. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- dang 5y ago
  We've changed the URL from https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/acm-verplicht-apple-onredelijke-voorwaarden-voor-app-store-aan-te-passen https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/acm-verplicht-apple-onrede... to what seems to be the main English-language article. We have deep respect for other languages but HN is an English-language site, so please stick to that.
999900000999 5y ago
Any reason this isn't for all apps ? Even now, Google allows users to ether pay directly to app makers. I still vastly prefer Google Pay. As in most of the time I'll skip an an app without a Google Pay option
- ranieuwe 5y ago
  They acted upon a complaint from dating apps and as such is scoped to those only.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Another day, another crack in the garden wall.
- dang 5y ago
  Please do not post duplicate comments. It's a big pain when we merge the threads. Plus it adds noise.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Another day, another crack in the garden wall.
- criddell 5y ago
  I think what many want is alternate payment methods to avoid paying the 15-30% fee to Apple but from what I've been reading is that Apple may allow alternate payment providers but still demand the fee. Baby steps, I guess.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    ...or change the developer fee from $99/year to $1 per year per active installation.
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    > ... from what I've been reading is that Apple may allow alternate payment providers but still demand the fee. I'd like to see how Apple does this - Apple will have to track payments through alternative systems it has no control over, and then try to claim their 30% Apple tax from the developers for transactions it claims has happened. They'll have to include even more intrusive spying tech into ios to do this. I don't see how they'll do this without upsetting both the users and the developers.
    - dsnr 5y ago
      No need for spying tech when you have legally-binding agreements.
    - criddell 5y ago
      They will probably do this the same way software companies have always done this. Through contracts and auditing. They seem to be lower profile these days, but traditionally enforcement of contracts like this have been through the Business Software Alliance or similar groups. Search for "Business Software Alliance audit" and you can find plenty of information.
ATsch 5y ago
I think one thing that really needs to change here is the ability of companies like apple to draw out these rulings with endless appeals and delays. Those legal processes are very apt when you're deciding whether someone should live behind bars for the rest of their life, but when deciding that a trillion dollar company should stop hurting consumers and pay a fine of 0.1% of their monthly profits takes three years there's something very wrong. Especially considering that if a regulation has undesirable effects on such big companies there's still more than enough time for legislators to just, change the rules.
xeox538 5y ago
The spokesman of the ACM just told om national tv that Apple tried to keep it silent by going to court, and luckily the judge denied the request. Yet another dick move of Apple vs open market competition.
arciini 5y ago
I think it's reasonable for regulators in the long run to rein in these cash cow businesses a bit, when they're a crucial bottleneck in an ecosystem, just like long-duration patents or copyright. The extra fee likely stifles innovation, just like any tax or overhead to setting up a business. Both Android and iOS are not actually that dependent on App Store revenue to stay afloat, and I think courts will (and should) continue ruling this way in more consumer-friendly locales. Apple still makes more of its iOS profit from device sales, despite its attempts to increase services income. Google actually makes more of its profit from ad sales to users on Android phones than from Google Play Store itself. The development cost of Android is likely quite a bit lower per user than what Google has to pay to Apple to keep Google as the default search engine. As such, Google still has a strong incentive to keep developing Android and promoting it so it gains market share from iOS.
derriz 5y ago
I couldn't think of a less worthy sector than dating apps and dating websites for a ruling like this. From what I've heard, their business model is almost entirely based on making subscription easy but making unsubscribing incredibly difficult - generally with annual-only subscription and requiring hand-filled forms to be be sent by mail within a very narrow time window to avoid the subscription rolling over for another year. They also tend to ramp the fees and deploy aggressive debt collection services if you try to stop paying. In this particularly case, I think the Apple tax provides value by protecting consumers from scammy operators.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dang 5y ago
Dutch watchdog finds Apple App Store payment rules anti-competitive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785349 - Oct 2021 (236 comments)
- ksec 5y ago
  Thanks.

61 points by the-dude 5y ago

ksec 5y ago

This is currently listed as Dupe, so where is the / original other submission?

Dutch source only, sorry. The Dutch Consumer & Market Authority (ACM) is demanding that Apple amend the unreasonable terms in the App Store that apply to dating app providers. Dating app providers now have no free choice of payment system for purchases made in the dating app by consumers. [suspended]. If Apple does not change the unreasonable conditions within two months, it must pay a penalty of 5 million euros per week with a maximum of 50 million euros. In this way the ACM wants to quickly improve Apple's unreasonable terms for dating app providers. Martijn Snoep, chairman of the ACM: "Some app providers depend on Apple's App Store and Apple is abusing that. Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position. That's why Apple has to take the interests of app providers seriously and work with reasonable conditions. We are enforcing that now. Protecting people and businesses from the abuse of market power in the digital economy is one of our most important tasks." What does Apple need to change? Apple must adjust the conditions of access to the Dutch App Store for dating app providers. Dating app providers must be able to use other payment systems in addition to Apple's payment system on the App Store. In addition, dating app providers should be allowed to refer in their app to payment options outside the app. [suspended] What's going on? To use the App Store, app providers pay $99 per year. Nearly 85% of app providers pay only this fee. These are small companies, but also large companies like Amazon, Booking or Uber. If an app provider wants to offer paid services or subscriptions within its app - such as dating apps - Apple imposes additional conditions. [suspended]. This applies to just over 15% of app providers. [suspended]. The ACM finds that the conditions are disproportionate to the additional payment service provided. Also, the terms are not necessary to maintain the App Store. Therefore, the ACM states that the terms and conditions are unreasonable and contrary to the competition rules. Dating Apps There are several dating services on the Dutch market that offer their services through an app. Since most consumers have an Android smartphone or an iPhone, dating apps mainly use the Google Play Store and Apple's App Store. To have the widest possible reach, dating apps should therefore be present in both these app stores. After all, consumers also want to be able to reach consumers with a different type of smartphone. Because on the iPhone dating apps can only be offered through the App Store, dating app providers are very dependent on Apple. Therefore, dating app providers have no choice but to accept the conditions of Apple. Therefore, the ACM finds that Apple has a dominant position. ACM and the Digital Economy The digital economy is an important theme for the ACM. People and businesses must be protected against online deception and market power. To tackle abuses of dominant positions, the ACM conducts investigations and can impose sanctions on companies, including fines and charges under penalty payments. In addition, the ACM is in favor of the upcoming adaptation of European rules requiring large companies and platforms to provide access to their platform or technology. In addition, the ACM has issued, among other things, a guideline 'protection of the online consumer'. This guide is based on European consumer rules and indicates where online temptation turns into deception. The guidelines form the basis for investigation and enforcement by the ACM. In this way the ACM also makes online markets work well for people and businesses. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

dang 5y ago
We've changed the URL from https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/acm-verplicht-apple-onredelijke-voorwaarden-voor-app-store-aan-te-passen https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/acm-verplicht-apple-onrede... to what seems to be the main English-language article. We have deep respect for other languages but HN is an English-language site, so please stick to that.

999900000999 5y ago

Any reason this isn't for all apps ? Even now, Google allows users to ether pay directly to app makers. I still vastly prefer Google Pay. As in most of the time I'll skip an an app without a Google Pay option

ranieuwe 5y ago
They acted upon a complaint from dating apps and as such is scoped to those only.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Another day, another crack in the garden wall.

dang 5y ago
Please do not post duplicate comments. It's a big pain when we merge the threads. Plus it adds noise.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Another day, another crack in the garden wall.

criddell 5y ago
I think what many want is alternate payment methods to avoid paying the 15-30% fee to Apple but from what I've been reading is that Apple may allow alternate payment providers but still demand the fee. Baby steps, I guess.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  ...or change the developer fee from $99/year to $1 per year per active installation.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  > ... from what I've been reading is that Apple may allow alternate payment providers but still demand the fee. I'd like to see how Apple does this - Apple will have to track payments through alternative systems it has no control over, and then try to claim their 30% Apple tax from the developers for transactions it claims has happened. They'll have to include even more intrusive spying tech into ios to do this. I don't see how they'll do this without upsetting both the users and the developers.
  - dsnr 5y ago
    No need for spying tech when you have legally-binding agreements.
  - criddell 5y ago
    They will probably do this the same way software companies have always done this. Through contracts and auditing. They seem to be lower profile these days, but traditionally enforcement of contracts like this have been through the Business Software Alliance or similar groups. Search for "Business Software Alliance audit" and you can find plenty of information.

ATsch 5y ago

I think one thing that really needs to change here is the ability of companies like apple to draw out these rulings with endless appeals and delays. Those legal processes are very apt when you're deciding whether someone should live behind bars for the rest of their life, but when deciding that a trillion dollar company should stop hurting consumers and pay a fine of 0.1% of their monthly profits takes three years there's something very wrong. Especially considering that if a regulation has undesirable effects on such big companies there's still more than enough time for legislators to just, change the rules.

xeox538 5y ago

The spokesman of the ACM just told om national tv that Apple tried to keep it silent by going to court, and luckily the judge denied the request. Yet another dick move of Apple vs open market competition.

arciini 5y ago

I think it's reasonable for regulators in the long run to rein in these cash cow businesses a bit, when they're a crucial bottleneck in an ecosystem, just like long-duration patents or copyright. The extra fee likely stifles innovation, just like any tax or overhead to setting up a business. Both Android and iOS are not actually that dependent on App Store revenue to stay afloat, and I think courts will (and should) continue ruling this way in more consumer-friendly locales. Apple still makes more of its iOS profit from device sales, despite its attempts to increase services income. Google actually makes more of its profit from ad sales to users on Android phones than from Google Play Store itself. The development cost of Android is likely quite a bit lower per user than what Google has to pay to Apple to keep Google as the default search engine. As such, Google still has a strong incentive to keep developing Android and promoting it so it gains market share from iOS.

derriz 5y ago

I couldn't think of a less worthy sector than dating apps and dating websites for a ruling like this. From what I've heard, their business model is almost entirely based on making subscription easy but making unsubscribing incredibly difficult - generally with annual-only subscription and requiring hand-filled forms to be be sent by mail within a very narrow time window to avoid the subscription rolling over for another year. They also tend to ramp the fees and deploy aggressive debt collection services if you try to stop paying. In this particularly case, I think the Apple tax provides value by protecting consumers from scammy operators.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dang 5y ago

Dutch watchdog finds Apple App Store payment rules anti-competitive - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28785349 - Oct 2021 (236 comments)

ksec 5y ago
Thanks.