53 ms·

Developing a new app is unreasonable condition that Apple imposes on dating apps

280 points by keleftheriou 5y ago

apatheticonion 5y ago
Side topic, I would love to see it become easier in general for applications to be developed on mobile platforms. I am not a big fan of Kotlin but I'd love to be able to write a mobile application that uses native window library in Rust or C++. Same goes for Apple. But their platforms are so locked down that no matter what language you pick, you always end up having to write _some_ Kotlin/Swift to connect it to the native UI elements or register background services or whatever. I don't know if it would have been the case, but I wonder if the Windows phone would have been more open to different development sources than Android or iOS. Linux powered devices are cool but sadly they don't have the years of polish and apps required to make them practical daily drivers.
- Sephiroth87 5y ago
  You can develop iOS apps in C++ if you hate yourself…
PanMan 5y ago
As long as they keep the 27% fee, I don't see any apps switching, also if they don't have to build a second app.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
naveen99 5y ago
Apple is a public company. People who don’t like the Apple tax can just buy apple stock. Then they receive the tax.
keleftheriou 5y ago
Earlier post that did not directly link to ACM's statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334284
vincentmarle 5y ago
> Apple must therefore pay another 5 million euros. The total of all penalty payments currently stands at 20 million euros. I wonder at which point Apple will start caring about these fines.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  When the fines are equal or higher than the money they currently make from these anti-competitive practices.
bgorman 5y ago
It seems like Apple is really tempting fate here. These onerous and anti-competitive rules will surely invite more regulation.
- Guest42 5y ago
  Agreed. It seems as though they've adopted a never-surrender mindset and will continue down the current path regardless of circumstances.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    I think this is going to be a wake-up call, not just for Apple but big tech in general. They're used to the US where regulators, when they even exist, can trivially be worked around with lobbying or a half-assed, bad-faith "solution" like this one. It seems like this kind of strategy no longer works in the EU.
    - realusername 5y ago
      They dig their own grave, they have way too much market power while simultaneously reducing as much as they can the taxes they provide in the EU, their contempt is the cherry on top. I don't even see anything which could make them not get hammered.
      - chasil 5y ago
        There should be an F-Droid for Apple, that only accepts contributions in the form of source code. Both Apple and Google should be compelled to admit anything from F-Droid into their relevant app stores, at whatever price the developer sets. When an app developer is proscribed, this option will allow access to mobile platforms that Apple or Google would otherwise revoke and ban. There is enough attention on this issue now to force this to happen. https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/googles-online-ad-business-would-be-dismantled-under-bill-gaining-bipartisan-support/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/googles-online-ad-business-wou...
  - 5y ago
wdb 5y ago
Can you upload the app with the new entitlement using the existing app id specially for the Dutch appstore? I think that would be reasonable to expect
- enragedcacti 5y ago
  Probably? but another rule states that you can't have the entitlement and IAP in the same app, so the end result would be Apple taking away user's choice between IAP or external and forcing the developer to decide for all of their customers.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  There doesn't have to be entitlements or anything - it is not a technical problem and doesn't require a technical solution. Apple can just tell its app reviewers to skip the "alternate payment methods" issue when reviewing apps covered by this ruling.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Why do entitlements exist on the App Store? I never understood them, and therefore they’re totally a Chesterton’s Fence to me.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      Entitlements are part of code-signing and allow access to restricted software or hardware features - they're checked at runtime before granting access. They make zero sense when it comes to stupid policy like this though.
    - kmeisthax 5y ago
      Entitlements are a permission system, equivalent to Android's own. Your app lists what device access it needs and it only gets what it asks for and no more. Apple also uses them to audit or gate off device access to certain things - i.e. if your app requests the network extensions entitlement, then App Review is going to be asking why your app needs to be able to MITM all device traffic. Apple appears to be using entitlements entirely to flag that an app is using third-party payments, which is kind of a hack as there is no way for iOS to prohibit you from offering them to begin with. But this is the standard way of asking Apple for extra permissions, so I can see why they're using it. The separate app thing is there specifically so that Apple can technically enforce that apps only get third-party payments in the Netherlands and nowhere else. The alternative would be for app developers to check for themselves if they're in the Netherlands and only offer third-party payments if that check succeeds. But there's no (easy) way for Apple to verify that your app is compliant; app developers could totally Volkswagen them. Or at least this is the pretext Apple will use to justify making compliance as friction-filled as possible.
awinter-py 5y ago
> ACM is of the opinion that this condition hurts dating-app providers this reads so differently from american competition opinions, where the framework is designed around consumer protection
- not2b 5y ago
  American antitrust laws were originally written to protect competitors as well as consumers, and to limit corporate power, but during the 80s the laws were re-interpreted (largely because of Robert Bork's writings) to greatly restrict antitrust enforcement.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    I agree. In fact, "consumer welfare" is tantamount to repealing antitrust, and the growth of FAANG can be directly traced to this change in legal standard. Literally every monopoly ever can be said to have a consumer welfare benefit. Competition is always at least a little anti-consumer - you have to consider alternatives and multiple business relationships, and consumers have a risk of those alternatives being inferior or outright harmful. The problem is that nobody is ever purely a "consumer". There are no professional consumers whose entire life is just buying and using things[0]. "Consumer" is just a hat that people wear among many others. So whatever welfare consumers get from larger firms is mere compensation for welfare lost when those same people are either working for or operating the firms at the other end of the business. Even if someone isn't both a user and developer on Apple platforms, they are indirectly impacted when those developers are harmed by Apple's misconduct, and have to compensate in other ways, such as charging more money across-the-board or skimping on other things. (e.g. not shipping an Android version of their app because App Store compliance is taking up too much developer time) [0] Though, the attitude I've gotten from some Apple users would imply that their entire life literally is just buying things on their iPhone.
    - FabHK 5y ago
      > In fact, "consumer welfare" is tantamount to repealing antitrust, and the growth of FAANG can be directly traced to this change in legal standard. Literally every monopoly ever can be said to have a consumer welfare benefit. Eh? Not at all. The entire point (in classical economic theory) is that a monopoly, compared to perfect competition, reduces consumer surplus and arrogates a part of that to itself as rent (thereby reducing total social surplus).
louwrentius 5y ago
Apple seems to be dying to get regulated with childish behavior like this. And I ‘m all-in on the ecosystem, but the behavior of apple is getting worse.
tempnow987 5y ago
Competition law has morphed so it's all about making sure BUSINESSES including absolute scum can get into walled gardens and make their money. The question of consumer benefit / preference etc has gone. Don't like apple's walled garden? Get an android phone! The reality is at least for some segment of the market, having apple throwing it weight around with these "wonderful" providers who would NEVER thing of doing a subscription dark pattern (haha - dating apps have a horrible history here) is appreciated? Desired? My question - the internet is subject to regulation, why don't these regulators focus on ANY of the absolute CRAP on the internet. Fake news stories, fake tech support, money scammers etc etc. Instead we are stuck with folks like scambaiters doing their thing (for free) and our billion dollar competition etc agencies sit on their butts.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > Don't like apple's walled garden? Get an android phone! Great for customers who don’t like it, not so useful if the question is “does Apple’s walled garden prevent the creation of businesses that consumers would like to do business with if only they had the opportunity”. I don’t claim to know enough about any marketplace or business landscape to answer the latter question, but that’s what is being claimed here.
  - miffy900 5y ago
    > "does Apple’s walled garden prevent the creation of businesses that consumers would like to do business with if only they had the opportunity" They already do prevent certain businesses from operating in the App Store anyway, irrespective of the regulatory scrutiny here. An example is present in Apple's review guidelines, where they specifically ban any apps that encourage consumption of tobacco products or vaping. See https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ > 1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. The same goes with all apps that feature pornography or facilitate prostitution and I'm sure many adult-entertainment businesses would love the opportunity to do business in the App Store. I'm not saying Apple should or shouldn't allow those types of businesses on the app store, mind you, but there's no law saying Apple must allow even dating apps on the App Store; if Apple decided they could probably ban dating apps altogether.
endisneigh 5y ago
Apple does a lot of very questionable stuff, but I'm still not convinced regulation is the solution here. It's still very easy to go with an Android variant that doesn't have some of these restrictions (though increasingly some Android phones are introducing their own annoyances). For example for the given article users of dating apps can already use different payment providers, provided they go with a different phone. If these types of grievances are so bad, why don't users switch? It's worth considering these questions. Apple does certainly try to incentivize you to go-all in with Apple Watch/Fitness+ integrations, AirPod, AirTag, etc. I believe Europe's general approach is just contributing to its brain drain. A large chunk of huge tech companies in the United States are founded by European nationals, not even children of immigrants. You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger tech industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is regulation. Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general. Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over to a local national company and then the issue of Apple being anti competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be competition. TLDR: Help foster strong competitive companies, stop wasting time trying to neuter Apple
- enragedcacti 5y ago
  Dating apps cannot use alternate payment methods within their Google Play App and are subject to the same 30% fee. In order to avoid the fee, they would have to distribute the app through an alternative store or as an APK which has just as many if not more hoops than what regulators are objecting to here, although they do get to keep the last 27% compared to the Apple situation.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  There are far too many axes to weigh when switching products/providers every time a single point is handled poorly. Is it really reasonable for someone to make a choice on changing all of the things associated with their mobile phone based on whether or not dating apps are treated fairly?
- enragedcacti 5y ago
Spivak 5y ago
I mean I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Apple to not want automatic upgrades to swap out the payment provider from one that’s Apple supported to 3rd party. How should that even work with currently Apple managed subscriptions? Just cancel them all? Is Apple even allowed to require that their own payment system be present in addition under this ruling?
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Apple already requires that you offer their login service if you offer any other ones, so I could see them imposing that requirement. But then you'd have to be able to compete with their option, like by offering lower prices, and they don't allow that.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  There's technically no way to "swap" the provider; you can't extract payment details from the Apple-provided subscription infrastructure (partly because there might not even be payment details - they might be using carrier billing or iTunes gift cards). However I don't see anything that suggests that's what they're trying to do - what I assume they're after (which would be very reasonable) is to offer direct card payments in addition to Apple's option (with the direct option priced cheaper to offset Apple's cut).
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  That's not what the ruling stipulated-it just says the developer must be given the option of presenting alternate payment providers. Presumably the court thinks the developers thus should be able to push an update that includes this additional functionality, whereas Apple's bizarre efforts at [non-]compliance require apps with non-Apple payment option to be a separate SKU (which is not really "develop a separate app" as they've described it here, but certainly is a barrier Apple has chosen to erect in an attempt to undermine this ruling.)
floodle 5y ago
I'm all for regulation, but this seems like an overreach.
intrasight 5y ago
Online dating, like other industries, can always choose to deliver their services via a web browser. And now that iOS Safari is adding push notification, they have an alternative delivery path that has feature parity.
- the_snooze 5y ago
  Yeah, it's weird that companies complain about app store restrictions, when browser-based services get around those restrictions completely. It's not like a website needs to go through app store approval. But I guess companies are just that desperate for device tracking information and regularly-collected location data.
  - kristiandupont 5y ago
    I complain about that because Apple has (deliberately, I suspect) crippled Safari PWA features, making it impossible to deliver a good experience through the channel. Now, they have recently made some small changes and I really, really hope that is a sign of them changing this strategy but I want to see it before I believe it.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    Browser based apps are almost always inferior to a native program.
- warning26 5y ago
  Have you tried creating a messaging app that works in iOS Safari? Thanks to Safari's janky-AF scroll behavior, you can be sure that it's a terrible experience. Source: I work on a major tech company's web-based messaging product.
  - intrasight 5y ago
    Dating apps don't scroll - the just swipe ;) I've heard that they are finally putting some resource on the jank.
  - 5y ago
not2b 5y ago
Apple really is asking for trouble here. First off, they say that in order to get out of the requirement that everyone give Apple 30% of income, they say that those using an alternative payment method still must give Apple 27% of income. Then they say that app developers have to produce an entirely new app. In effect they are trying to create a situation where it is irrational for any developer to try to escape their payment system, which is exactly what the courts have already ruled that they must allow. They are risking having the EU as a whole slap them down and impose tougher restrictions.
- neximo64 5y ago
  If they didn't have the 27%, I would basically set up a business for a US app and boost my revenue 40% simply by cutting out Apple.
- firloop 5y ago
  > First off, they say that in order to get out of the requirement that everyone give Apple 30% of income, they say that those using an alternative payment method still must give Apple 27% of income. That's not exactly the trade here – Apple is letting people use alternative payment providers, which does carry a lot of benefits besides not paying the fee, including better customer management and support
  - ummonk 5y ago
    > which does carry a lot of benefits besides not paying the fee, including better customer management and support And most importantly, making it really difficult for the user to cancel the subscription
    - Tagbert 5y ago
      One problem app developers now have is that they can’t refund any purchases even if they agree that it is justified. They tell customers that only Apple can do that and customers tend to not believe them but that is how Apple set it up.
anaisbetts 5y ago
I look forward to Apple incurring more anti-competitive regulation and bringing the entire industry with it so that two companies do not get to decide by fiat what software is and is not allowed to be written, and what businesses do and do not get to exist
- RIMR 5y ago
  This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own and control. Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. The real problem is that consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing, which isn't defeated by destroying the free choice of corporations, but by creating a viable competing alternative. This currently exists in the form of jailbreaking, the use of third-party app stores and sideloading. Ultimately it should take the form of a competing smartphone OS. Quite frankly, Linux is beginning to look more and more capable of breaking into this scene, and this will fundamentally turn the current broken system on its head when it happens. Android being open source and Unix-based only makes it easier since a ton of the foundations already exist.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing Consumers don't have any choice. Apps are typically only available for iOS/Android. The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. Nobody needs an Xbox to access their bank or government functions. But people do (realistically) need to use smartphones. Regulation is absolutely appropriate here. My question to you would be: why not regulate? What concrete harm do you think it would cause?
    - sigstoat 5y ago
      > The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. they've been general purpose platforms for years. they just don't look like it because the manufacturers are even more restrictive with access than apple.
ummonk 5y ago
Apple's position here is correct. I as a non-Netherlands user don't want my apps pushing their own payment methods, so app providers should only be making separate apps with their own payment methods available to Netherlands-based users.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Don't install such apps if you don't want them. But how indecent you must be to insist other people who want such apps to not have them?
  - ummonk 5y ago
    If they want such apps they can buy an Android. Or move to the Netherlands.
    - ginko 5y ago
      I'd prefer if Apple were forced to open iOS :)
  - robgibbons 5y ago
    I like how you turned a common Apple apologist's argument right on its head. If you don't like it, just don't buy it!
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      I want to buy the device, and do whatever I please with it. But apple lets users only rent their phones, and allows the use of rented devices only with severe restrictions, so I'll rather pass.
- simion314 5y ago
  >I as a non-Netherlands user don't want my apps pushing their own payment methods, so app providers should only be making separate apps with their own payment methods available to Netherlands-based users. === I am an Apple user similar as GNOME users ouyr brains can't handle options, even the idea that some user would chose something then me SEGFAULTS my brain for days. Not joking, this is about giving options, Apple fanboys could continue to pay with Apple and pay more. Why should some assholes decide that I should not pay with my bank account or with PayPal, I don't care that Net York times or other US companies are shit with canceling subscriptions.
jdrc 5y ago
Sandvich 5y ago
All Apple has to do is what they already do with "Sign in with Apple". Just require everyone who uses third-party payment to also offer Apple's services. That one little step would avoid the regulation they're going to be hit with.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Apple should be wristslapped for forcing developers to use their sign in method, too.
  - jamesgeck0 5y ago
    The difference is that Apple's sign in is beneficial for non-technically savvy users, as it both allows using an anonymous email alias and alleviates the need for password creation. Those are both reasonable privacy and security trade-offs for a tiny bit of (generally reversible) ecosystem lock-in.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      Tiny bit? Try and migrate dozens of app accounts to a non-Apple email, as a non-technical user. Disregarding the sheer amount of work, such users won't even know how to send emails from the private addresses they signed up with, making it hard for app developers to identify them. It's always about control and lock-in with Apple.
  - littlecranky67 5y ago
    To add to the other threads, Apple Sign-in is only required if you use any other sign-in providers (Google, Facebook, etc.). Since Apple Sign-In allows anonymous signup, I like this rule (remember back then when Tinder forced you to use Facebook Sign-In?).
  - duped 5y ago
    As a user I'm a huge fan of it. It's how I use a lot of services these days without tying them to an email account.
null_object 5y ago
This has somehow become the “Apple Tax” on HN. No-one is forced to create apps for the Apple platform.
nps1 5y ago
This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default browser in Windows. Apple has to give in eventually.
- gruez 5y ago
  >This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default browser in Windows I don't ever recall microsoft preventing you from changing the default browser on windows. How do you think google chrome got started in the first place?
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    Microsoft just loves to reset the choice to edge on any given moment.
Someone 5y ago
So, iOS is supposed to start supporting alternative payment providers, so that apps can start using them without those apps seeing any update, but only for dating apps, and only in the Netherlands? Would it have to work if a user installs multiple dating apps, and picks different payment providers for each of them, changes them a few times a month, etc? How would users configure payment providers (presumably in iOS settings, as the apps can’t be changed)? I don’t see how iOS could come preloaded with every payment provider on the planet (if only because new ones can pop up every minute), so should it download and run code that processes the user’s money, or would Apple be allowed to restrict what payment providers can do so that iOS can configure them based on a few items (say an icon, a descriptive text, a background image, and some info on how to make a payment)? I can see solutions here, but not ones that can be implemented in a few weeks time. Implementing such a feature takes time, even if you can throw money at it.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Payment is easy, you can use regular old webviews to handle payment. You don't need native payment providers to be supported at all. The Dutch iDeal system easily integrates into apps as well through banking apps. Callback URLs are well supported and any app can register protocol handlers for them to receive confirmation of payment (which the app then must verify through a backend API call, to prevent abuse, of course). This is all quite trivial to implement, and requires no work from Apple at all. The specificity is because of the nature of the lawsuit. A bunch of dating apps decided to join forces and sue Apple in the Netherlands. The judge ruled against Apple, so Apple has to allow the dating apps (and probably the entire dating category) to use alternate payment options. Sure, going by the law Apple should probably allow all apps in Europe to use alternate payment options, but Apple is making more money than the noncompliance fines. They're trying to bleed anyone enforcing the law dry by pretending to do what was asked but in the most detestable, childish, and stubborn way possible. I hope the judge will add a couple of zeroes to these fines because another fifty million is nothing but the cost of business for a company like Apple.
dang 5y ago
Past related threads. Others? Distributing Dating Apps in the Netherlands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30206559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30206559 - Feb 2022 (17 comments) Apple will charge 27% commission for alternative payment systems in Netherlands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 - Feb 2022 (878 comments) Apple's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments Insufficient, Says Dutch Regulator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30058113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30058113 - Jan 2022 (6 comments) Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use other payment systems - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29945797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29945797 - Jan 2022 (61 comments) 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) More distantly related: Netherlands ACM launches investigation into abuse by Apple in its App Store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19664584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19664584 - April 2019 (117 comments) Apple in Dutch antitrust spotlight for allegedly promoting own apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19640924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19640924 - April 2019 (7 comments)
natch 5y ago
Isn’t it just that they are required to use a new bundle ID? Essentially the developer workload imposed here would be changing a single string in a single file (the project’s Info.plist file). To be sure there are other challenges raised by this for the developer. For example any app specific storage would need to be migrated to the other app, something for which there are mechanisms in the Apple ecosystem as long as the two App IDs in question come from the same developer. If they don’t, then the developer would have to cook up their own solution for that. Also marketing would be an issue. For example the review history for one app would not be migrated to the other App ID unless Apple provides a way to do this (which I would not expect unless they are forced). In short, while it’s not zero impact, it’s also not quite as bad as the scare headline makes it sound.
- btown 5y ago
  I hadn't even thought about review history, but that's huge - because it gives Apple a justification for putting Tinder Direct lower than Tinder in all search results, simply because it doesn't have a history of reviews!
  - philistine 5y ago
    OH MY GOD! That must be why they're forcing that. They want separate reviews for the apps with their own payment system.
  - natch 5y ago
    I like how I didn’t think review history was a big deal but seeing your comment made me realize it is… yes that is a lot of power, being able to rank the new app into oblivion. I don’t share the thinking that we can immediately conclude this is their goal, but I can see how some might think it is.
sprite 5y ago
Apple also doesn't allow new dating apps, with some exceptions (unique, high quality experience, which seems like a judgement call you would have a hard time arguing with App Review): https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ 4.3 Spam Don’t create multiple Bundle IDs of the same app. If your app has different versions for specific locations, sports teams, universities, etc., consider submitting a single app and provide the variations using in-app purchase. Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, drinking games, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience. Spamming the store may lead to your removal from the Apple Developer Program.
- jiux 5y ago
  dating app Founder here. adding to sprite’s comment, they still allow new dating apps that match their guidelines.
  - mleonhard 5y ago
    I'm also solo, bootstrapped, and building a dating app. Would you like to connect? My email address is in my profile.

280 points by keleftheriou 5y ago

Side topic, I would love to see it become easier in general for applications to be developed on mobile platforms. I am not a big fan of Kotlin but I'd love to be able to write a mobile application that uses native window library in Rust or C++. Same goes for Apple. But their platforms are so locked down that no matter what language you pick, you always end up having to write _some_ Kotlin/Swift to connect it to the native UI elements or register background services or whatever. I don't know if it would have been the case, but I wonder if the Windows phone would have been more open to different development sources than Android or iOS. Linux powered devices are cool but sadly they don't have the years of polish and apps required to make them practical daily drivers.

Sephiroth87 5y ago
You can develop iOS apps in C++ if you hate yourself…

PanMan 5y ago

As long as they keep the 27% fee, I don't see any apps switching, also if they don't have to build a second app.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

naveen99 5y ago

Apple is a public company. People who don’t like the Apple tax can just buy apple stock. Then they receive the tax.

keleftheriou 5y ago

Earlier post that did not directly link to ACM's statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334284

vincentmarle 5y ago

> Apple must therefore pay another 5 million euros. The total of all penalty payments currently stands at 20 million euros. I wonder at which point Apple will start caring about these fines.

Nextgrid 5y ago
When the fines are equal or higher than the money they currently make from these anti-competitive practices.

bgorman 5y ago

It seems like Apple is really tempting fate here. These onerous and anti-competitive rules will surely invite more regulation.

Guest42 5y ago
Agreed. It seems as though they've adopted a never-surrender mindset and will continue down the current path regardless of circumstances.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I think this is going to be a wake-up call, not just for Apple but big tech in general. They're used to the US where regulators, when they even exist, can trivially be worked around with lobbying or a half-assed, bad-faith "solution" like this one. It seems like this kind of strategy no longer works in the EU.
  - realusername 5y ago
    They dig their own grave, they have way too much market power while simultaneously reducing as much as they can the taxes they provide in the EU, their contempt is the cherry on top. I don't even see anything which could make them not get hammered.
    - chasil 5y ago
      There should be an F-Droid for Apple, that only accepts contributions in the form of source code. Both Apple and Google should be compelled to admit anything from F-Droid into their relevant app stores, at whatever price the developer sets. When an app developer is proscribed, this option will allow access to mobile platforms that Apple or Google would otherwise revoke and ban. There is enough attention on this issue now to force this to happen. https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/googles-online-ad-business-would-be-dismantled-under-bill-gaining-bipartisan-support/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/googles-online-ad-business-wou...
- 5y ago

wdb 5y ago

Can you upload the app with the new entitlement using the existing app id specially for the Dutch appstore? I think that would be reasonable to expect

enragedcacti 5y ago
Probably? but another rule states that you can't have the entitlement and IAP in the same app, so the end result would be Apple taking away user's choice between IAP or external and forcing the developer to decide for all of their customers.
Nextgrid 5y ago
There doesn't have to be entitlements or anything - it is not a technical problem and doesn't require a technical solution. Apple can just tell its app reviewers to skip the "alternate payment methods" issue when reviewing apps covered by this ruling.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Why do entitlements exist on the App Store? I never understood them, and therefore they’re totally a Chesterton’s Fence to me.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Entitlements are part of code-signing and allow access to restricted software or hardware features - they're checked at runtime before granting access. They make zero sense when it comes to stupid policy like this though.
  - kmeisthax 5y ago
    Entitlements are a permission system, equivalent to Android's own. Your app lists what device access it needs and it only gets what it asks for and no more. Apple also uses them to audit or gate off device access to certain things - i.e. if your app requests the network extensions entitlement, then App Review is going to be asking why your app needs to be able to MITM all device traffic. Apple appears to be using entitlements entirely to flag that an app is using third-party payments, which is kind of a hack as there is no way for iOS to prohibit you from offering them to begin with. But this is the standard way of asking Apple for extra permissions, so I can see why they're using it. The separate app thing is there specifically so that Apple can technically enforce that apps only get third-party payments in the Netherlands and nowhere else. The alternative would be for app developers to check for themselves if they're in the Netherlands and only offer third-party payments if that check succeeds. But there's no (easy) way for Apple to verify that your app is compliant; app developers could totally Volkswagen them. Or at least this is the pretext Apple will use to justify making compliance as friction-filled as possible.

awinter-py 5y ago

> ACM is of the opinion that this condition hurts dating-app providers this reads so differently from american competition opinions, where the framework is designed around consumer protection

not2b 5y ago
American antitrust laws were originally written to protect competitors as well as consumers, and to limit corporate power, but during the 80s the laws were re-interpreted (largely because of Robert Bork's writings) to greatly restrict antitrust enforcement.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  I agree. In fact, "consumer welfare" is tantamount to repealing antitrust, and the growth of FAANG can be directly traced to this change in legal standard. Literally every monopoly ever can be said to have a consumer welfare benefit. Competition is always at least a little anti-consumer - you have to consider alternatives and multiple business relationships, and consumers have a risk of those alternatives being inferior or outright harmful. The problem is that nobody is ever purely a "consumer". There are no professional consumers whose entire life is just buying and using things[0]. "Consumer" is just a hat that people wear among many others. So whatever welfare consumers get from larger firms is mere compensation for welfare lost when those same people are either working for or operating the firms at the other end of the business. Even if someone isn't both a user and developer on Apple platforms, they are indirectly impacted when those developers are harmed by Apple's misconduct, and have to compensate in other ways, such as charging more money across-the-board or skimping on other things. (e.g. not shipping an Android version of their app because App Store compliance is taking up too much developer time) [0] Though, the attitude I've gotten from some Apple users would imply that their entire life literally is just buying things on their iPhone.
  - FabHK 5y ago
    > In fact, "consumer welfare" is tantamount to repealing antitrust, and the growth of FAANG can be directly traced to this change in legal standard. Literally every monopoly ever can be said to have a consumer welfare benefit. Eh? Not at all. The entire point (in classical economic theory) is that a monopoly, compared to perfect competition, reduces consumer surplus and arrogates a part of that to itself as rent (thereby reducing total social surplus).

louwrentius 5y ago

Apple seems to be dying to get regulated with childish behavior like this. And I ‘m all-in on the ecosystem, but the behavior of apple is getting worse.

tempnow987 5y ago

Competition law has morphed so it's all about making sure BUSINESSES including absolute scum can get into walled gardens and make their money. The question of consumer benefit / preference etc has gone. Don't like apple's walled garden? Get an android phone! The reality is at least for some segment of the market, having apple throwing it weight around with these "wonderful" providers who would NEVER thing of doing a subscription dark pattern (haha - dating apps have a horrible history here) is appreciated? Desired? My question - the internet is subject to regulation, why don't these regulators focus on ANY of the absolute CRAP on the internet. Fake news stories, fake tech support, money scammers etc etc. Instead we are stuck with folks like scambaiters doing their thing (for free) and our billion dollar competition etc agencies sit on their butts.

ben_w 5y ago
> Don't like apple's walled garden? Get an android phone! Great for customers who don’t like it, not so useful if the question is “does Apple’s walled garden prevent the creation of businesses that consumers would like to do business with if only they had the opportunity”. I don’t claim to know enough about any marketplace or business landscape to answer the latter question, but that’s what is being claimed here.
- miffy900 5y ago
  > "does Apple’s walled garden prevent the creation of businesses that consumers would like to do business with if only they had the opportunity" They already do prevent certain businesses from operating in the App Store anyway, irrespective of the regulatory scrutiny here. An example is present in Apple's review guidelines, where they specifically ban any apps that encourage consumption of tobacco products or vaping. See https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ > 1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. The same goes with all apps that feature pornography or facilitate prostitution and I'm sure many adult-entertainment businesses would love the opportunity to do business in the App Store. I'm not saying Apple should or shouldn't allow those types of businesses on the app store, mind you, but there's no law saying Apple must allow even dating apps on the App Store; if Apple decided they could probably ban dating apps altogether.

endisneigh 5y ago

Apple does a lot of very questionable stuff, but I'm still not convinced regulation is the solution here. It's still very easy to go with an Android variant that doesn't have some of these restrictions (though increasingly some Android phones are introducing their own annoyances). For example for the given article users of dating apps can already use different payment providers, provided they go with a different phone. If these types of grievances are so bad, why don't users switch? It's worth considering these questions. Apple does certainly try to incentivize you to go-all in with Apple Watch/Fitness+ integrations, AirPod, AirTag, etc. I believe Europe's general approach is just contributing to its brain drain. A large chunk of huge tech companies in the United States are founded by European nationals, not even children of immigrants. You cannot ignore that California alone has a larger tech industry than the entirety of Europe. It's not like Californians are smarter than Europeans, the difference is regulation. Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general. Resolve this problem, and then Europeans will just move over to a local national company and then the issue of Apple being anti competitive will be no longer relevant, as there will be competition. TLDR: Help foster strong competitive companies, stop wasting time trying to neuter Apple

enragedcacti 5y ago
Dating apps cannot use alternate payment methods within their Google Play App and are subject to the same 30% fee. In order to avoid the fee, they would have to distribute the app through an alternative store or as an APK which has just as many if not more hoops than what regulators are objecting to here, although they do get to keep the last 27% compared to the Apple situation.
zamadatix 5y ago
There are far too many axes to weigh when switching products/providers every time a single point is handled poorly. Is it really reasonable for someone to make a choice on changing all of the things associated with their mobile phone based on whether or not dating apps are treated fairly?
enragedcacti 5y ago

Spivak 5y ago

I mean I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Apple to not want automatic upgrades to swap out the payment provider from one that’s Apple supported to 3rd party. How should that even work with currently Apple managed subscriptions? Just cancel them all? Is Apple even allowed to require that their own payment system be present in addition under this ruling?

kevingadd 5y ago
Apple already requires that you offer their login service if you offer any other ones, so I could see them imposing that requirement. But then you'd have to be able to compete with their option, like by offering lower prices, and they don't allow that.
Nextgrid 5y ago
There's technically no way to "swap" the provider; you can't extract payment details from the Apple-provided subscription infrastructure (partly because there might not even be payment details - they might be using carrier billing or iTunes gift cards). However I don't see anything that suggests that's what they're trying to do - what I assume they're after (which would be very reasonable) is to offer direct card payments in addition to Apple's option (with the direct option priced cheaper to offset Apple's cut).
ghostly_s 5y ago
That's not what the ruling stipulated-it just says the developer must be given the option of presenting alternate payment providers. Presumably the court thinks the developers thus should be able to push an update that includes this additional functionality, whereas Apple's bizarre efforts at [non-]compliance require apps with non-Apple payment option to be a separate SKU (which is not really "develop a separate app" as they've described it here, but certainly is a barrier Apple has chosen to erect in an attempt to undermine this ruling.)

floodle 5y ago

I'm all for regulation, but this seems like an overreach.

intrasight 5y ago

Online dating, like other industries, can always choose to deliver their services via a web browser. And now that iOS Safari is adding push notification, they have an alternative delivery path that has feature parity.

the_snooze 5y ago
Yeah, it's weird that companies complain about app store restrictions, when browser-based services get around those restrictions completely. It's not like a website needs to go through app store approval. But I guess companies are just that desperate for device tracking information and regularly-collected location data.
- kristiandupont 5y ago
  I complain about that because Apple has (deliberately, I suspect) crippled Safari PWA features, making it impossible to deliver a good experience through the channel. Now, they have recently made some small changes and I really, really hope that is a sign of them changing this strategy but I want to see it before I believe it.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  Browser based apps are almost always inferior to a native program.
warning26 5y ago
Have you tried creating a messaging app that works in iOS Safari? Thanks to Safari's janky-AF scroll behavior, you can be sure that it's a terrible experience. Source: I work on a major tech company's web-based messaging product.
- intrasight 5y ago
  Dating apps don't scroll - the just swipe ;) I've heard that they are finally putting some resource on the jank.
- 5y ago

not2b 5y ago

Apple really is asking for trouble here. First off, they say that in order to get out of the requirement that everyone give Apple 30% of income, they say that those using an alternative payment method still must give Apple 27% of income. Then they say that app developers have to produce an entirely new app. In effect they are trying to create a situation where it is irrational for any developer to try to escape their payment system, which is exactly what the courts have already ruled that they must allow. They are risking having the EU as a whole slap them down and impose tougher restrictions.

neximo64 5y ago
If they didn't have the 27%, I would basically set up a business for a US app and boost my revenue 40% simply by cutting out Apple.
firloop 5y ago
> First off, they say that in order to get out of the requirement that everyone give Apple 30% of income, they say that those using an alternative payment method still must give Apple 27% of income. That's not exactly the trade here – Apple is letting people use alternative payment providers, which does carry a lot of benefits besides not paying the fee, including better customer management and support
- ummonk 5y ago
  > which does carry a lot of benefits besides not paying the fee, including better customer management and support And most importantly, making it really difficult for the user to cancel the subscription
  - Tagbert 5y ago
    One problem app developers now have is that they can’t refund any purchases even if they agree that it is justified. They tell customers that only Apple can do that and customers tend to not believe them but that is how Apple set it up.

anaisbetts 5y ago

I look forward to Apple incurring more anti-competitive regulation and bringing the entire industry with it so that two companies do not get to decide by fiat what software is and is not allowed to be written, and what businesses do and do not get to exist

RIMR 5y ago
This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own and control. Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. The real problem is that consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing, which isn't defeated by destroying the free choice of corporations, but by creating a viable competing alternative. This currently exists in the form of jailbreaking, the use of third-party app stores and sideloading. Ultimately it should take the form of a competing smartphone OS. Quite frankly, Linux is beginning to look more and more capable of breaking into this scene, and this will fundamentally turn the current broken system on its head when it happens. Android being open source and Unix-based only makes it easier since a ton of the foundations already exist.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing Consumers don't have any choice. Apps are typically only available for iOS/Android. The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. Nobody needs an Xbox to access their bank or government functions. But people do (realistically) need to use smartphones. Regulation is absolutely appropriate here. My question to you would be: why not regulate? What concrete harm do you think it would cause?
  - sigstoat 5y ago
    > The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. they've been general purpose platforms for years. they just don't look like it because the manufacturers are even more restrictive with access than apple.

ummonk 5y ago

Apple's position here is correct. I as a non-Netherlands user don't want my apps pushing their own payment methods, so app providers should only be making separate apps with their own payment methods available to Netherlands-based users.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Don't install such apps if you don't want them. But how indecent you must be to insist other people who want such apps to not have them?
- ummonk 5y ago
  If they want such apps they can buy an Android. Or move to the Netherlands.
  - ginko 5y ago
    I'd prefer if Apple were forced to open iOS :)
- robgibbons 5y ago
  I like how you turned a common Apple apologist's argument right on its head. If you don't like it, just don't buy it!
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    I want to buy the device, and do whatever I please with it. But apple lets users only rent their phones, and allows the use of rented devices only with severe restrictions, so I'll rather pass.
simion314 5y ago
>I as a non-Netherlands user don't want my apps pushing their own payment methods, so app providers should only be making separate apps with their own payment methods available to Netherlands-based users. === I am an Apple user similar as GNOME users ouyr brains can't handle options, even the idea that some user would chose something then me SEGFAULTS my brain for days. Not joking, this is about giving options, Apple fanboys could continue to pay with Apple and pay more. Why should some assholes decide that I should not pay with my bank account or with PayPal, I don't care that Net York times or other US companies are shit with canceling subscriptions.

jdrc 5y ago

Sandvich 5y ago

All Apple has to do is what they already do with "Sign in with Apple". Just require everyone who uses third-party payment to also offer Apple's services. That one little step would avoid the regulation they're going to be hit with.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Apple should be wristslapped for forcing developers to use their sign in method, too.
- jamesgeck0 5y ago
  The difference is that Apple's sign in is beneficial for non-technically savvy users, as it both allows using an anonymous email alias and alleviates the need for password creation. Those are both reasonable privacy and security trade-offs for a tiny bit of (generally reversible) ecosystem lock-in.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    Tiny bit? Try and migrate dozens of app accounts to a non-Apple email, as a non-technical user. Disregarding the sheer amount of work, such users won't even know how to send emails from the private addresses they signed up with, making it hard for app developers to identify them. It's always about control and lock-in with Apple.
- littlecranky67 5y ago
  To add to the other threads, Apple Sign-in is only required if you use any other sign-in providers (Google, Facebook, etc.). Since Apple Sign-In allows anonymous signup, I like this rule (remember back then when Tinder forced you to use Facebook Sign-In?).
- duped 5y ago
  As a user I'm a huge fan of it. It's how I use a lot of services these days without tying them to an email account.

null_object 5y ago

This has somehow become the “Apple Tax” on HN. No-one is forced to create apps for the Apple platform.

nps1 5y ago

This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default browser in Windows. Apple has to give in eventually.

gruez 5y ago
>This is similar to Microsoft not allowed Chrome as default browser in Windows I don't ever recall microsoft preventing you from changing the default browser on windows. How do you think google chrome got started in the first place?
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  Microsoft just loves to reset the choice to edge on any given moment.

Someone 5y ago

So, iOS is supposed to start supporting alternative payment providers, so that apps can start using them without those apps seeing any update, but only for dating apps, and only in the Netherlands? Would it have to work if a user installs multiple dating apps, and picks different payment providers for each of them, changes them a few times a month, etc? How would users configure payment providers (presumably in iOS settings, as the apps can’t be changed)? I don’t see how iOS could come preloaded with every payment provider on the planet (if only because new ones can pop up every minute), so should it download and run code that processes the user’s money, or would Apple be allowed to restrict what payment providers can do so that iOS can configure them based on a few items (say an icon, a descriptive text, a background image, and some info on how to make a payment)? I can see solutions here, but not ones that can be implemented in a few weeks time. Implementing such a feature takes time, even if you can throw money at it.

jeroenhd 5y ago
Payment is easy, you can use regular old webviews to handle payment. You don't need native payment providers to be supported at all. The Dutch iDeal system easily integrates into apps as well through banking apps. Callback URLs are well supported and any app can register protocol handlers for them to receive confirmation of payment (which the app then must verify through a backend API call, to prevent abuse, of course). This is all quite trivial to implement, and requires no work from Apple at all. The specificity is because of the nature of the lawsuit. A bunch of dating apps decided to join forces and sue Apple in the Netherlands. The judge ruled against Apple, so Apple has to allow the dating apps (and probably the entire dating category) to use alternate payment options. Sure, going by the law Apple should probably allow all apps in Europe to use alternate payment options, but Apple is making more money than the noncompliance fines. They're trying to bleed anyone enforcing the law dry by pretending to do what was asked but in the most detestable, childish, and stubborn way possible. I hope the judge will add a couple of zeroes to these fines because another fifty million is nothing but the cost of business for a company like Apple.

dang 5y ago

Past related threads. Others? Distributing Dating Apps in the Netherlands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30206559 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30206559 - Feb 2022 (17 comments) Apple will charge 27% commission for alternative payment systems in Netherlands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604 - Feb 2022 (878 comments) Apple's Plan for Third-Party In-App Payments Insufficient, Says Dutch Regulator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30058113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30058113 - Jan 2022 (6 comments) Apple complies with Dutch ruling, lets dating apps use other payment systems - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29945797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29945797 - Jan 2022 (61 comments) 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) More distantly related: Netherlands ACM launches investigation into abuse by Apple in its App Store - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19664584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19664584 - April 2019 (117 comments) Apple in Dutch antitrust spotlight for allegedly promoting own apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19640924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19640924 - April 2019 (7 comments)

natch 5y ago

Isn’t it just that they are required to use a new bundle ID? Essentially the developer workload imposed here would be changing a single string in a single file (the project’s Info.plist file). To be sure there are other challenges raised by this for the developer. For example any app specific storage would need to be migrated to the other app, something for which there are mechanisms in the Apple ecosystem as long as the two App IDs in question come from the same developer. If they don’t, then the developer would have to cook up their own solution for that. Also marketing would be an issue. For example the review history for one app would not be migrated to the other App ID unless Apple provides a way to do this (which I would not expect unless they are forced). In short, while it’s not zero impact, it’s also not quite as bad as the scare headline makes it sound.

btown 5y ago
I hadn't even thought about review history, but that's huge - because it gives Apple a justification for putting Tinder Direct lower than Tinder in all search results, simply because it doesn't have a history of reviews!
- philistine 5y ago
  OH MY GOD! That must be why they're forcing that. They want separate reviews for the apps with their own payment system.
- natch 5y ago
  I like how I didn’t think review history was a big deal but seeing your comment made me realize it is… yes that is a lot of power, being able to rank the new app into oblivion. I don’t share the thinking that we can immediately conclude this is their goal, but I can see how some might think it is.

sprite 5y ago

Apple also doesn't allow new dating apps, with some exceptions (unique, high quality experience, which seems like a judgement call you would have a hard time arguing with App Review): https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ 4.3 Spam Don’t create multiple Bundle IDs of the same app. If your app has different versions for specific locations, sports teams, universities, etc., consider submitting a single app and provide the variations using in-app purchase. Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, drinking games, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience. Spamming the store may lead to your removal from the Apple Developer Program.

jiux 5y ago
dating app Founder here. adding to sprite’s comment, they still allow new dating apps that match their guidelines.
- mleonhard 5y ago
  I'm also solo, bootstrapped, and building a dating app. Would you like to connect? My email address is in my profile.