5 ms·

Just a simple math question: Is keeping the in-app purchasing regime from collapsing worth more than $50 million to them? Yep. Even if the Dutch revenue isn't

Just a simple math question: Is keeping the in-app purchasing regime from collapsing worth more than $50 million to them? Yep. Even if the Dutch revenue isn't that much, once one country succeeds the rest will follow that model. Apple and Google are just going to delay as much as possible, and when their delay tactics no longer work, eat the fines until they're higher than the profits.

withinboredom 5y ago
I somehow doubt IAP revenue with dating apps in the Netherlands >= 5 million EUR a week.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  The issue is the global revenue: If any country can get them to forego 30% profits, the rest will follow in short order.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    I thought the issue was in regards to laws surrounding dating apps and not generalized? FWIW, here, some NL specific apps just accept a direct bank transfer without any IAP, right in the app. Apple reviewers don't seem to care.
    - ummonk 5y ago
      After the ruling, Apple has been requiring the dating app companies to create NL specific apps if they wish to use third party payment processors. They’re getting fined for this.
  - yreg 5y ago
    Perhaps they could kick dating apps out of the Dutch App Store.
    - tremon 5y ago
      Perhaps they could have, if only they would have allowed third-party app stores. But doing this now, while this case is ongoing, will very quickly earn them a contempt of court badge,
iruoy 5y ago
Just paying the fine doesn't allow them to keep the status quo. This is a nice article [1] about what the ACM is asking for and why Apple is making an effort to comply. Also, this lawsuit is for dating apps specifically, but should pave the way for other categories to follow right? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22917514/apple-netherlands-dating-apps-external-payment-processors-in-app-commission-acm https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22917514/apple-netherland...
ummonk 5y ago
> Even if the Dutch revenue isn't that much, once one country succeeds the rest will follow that model. The point of contention here isn’t about the Netherlands, but about whether the Dutch ruling will apply de facto globally. Apple wants to ensure it doesn’t, by requiring Netherlands-specific apps if enabling third party payment processors. The ACM wants it to apply globally.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Not necessarily: Apple could permit an app developer to allow third party payments in the same app, but only if the user was in the Netherlands. That's not a difficult code path to manage. The issue here is Apple is trying to frustrate any attempts to circumvent their payment processing: By both still demanding 27% fees, and also requiring they publish a separate app (likely requiring users to uninstall the main app and install the new one), Apple is trying to make it so onerous and painful to use third party payments that nobody will actually do so in practice.
  - Someone 5y ago
    > By both still demanding 27% fees In the court case that led to this, the court required Apple to support third party payment processors, but rejected the claim that their 30% cut was outrageous. The EU also has regulations limiting how much payment services such as Mastercard can charge. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_730 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_...: “caps are set at 0.2% of the value of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards“ Given that, I don’t see how the same court could say a 3% margin for third party payment services is unfair. Requiring a new app, on the other hand, is the trouble area. It means losing App Store reviews, and, probably more importantly, means users can’t seamlessly upgrade to a version that supports a third party payment service. Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app.
    - ummonk 5y ago
      > Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app. I think the apps here would be front ends to the same dating network.

withinboredom 5y ago

I somehow doubt IAP revenue with dating apps in the Netherlands >= 5 million EUR a week.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
The issue is the global revenue: If any country can get them to forego 30% profits, the rest will follow in short order.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  I thought the issue was in regards to laws surrounding dating apps and not generalized? FWIW, here, some NL specific apps just accept a direct bank transfer without any IAP, right in the app. Apple reviewers don't seem to care.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    After the ruling, Apple has been requiring the dating app companies to create NL specific apps if they wish to use third party payment processors. They’re getting fined for this.
- yreg 5y ago
  Perhaps they could kick dating apps out of the Dutch App Store.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Perhaps they could have, if only they would have allowed third-party app stores. But doing this now, while this case is ongoing, will very quickly earn them a contempt of court badge,

iruoy 5y ago

Just paying the fine doesn't allow them to keep the status quo. This is a nice article [1] about what the ACM is asking for and why Apple is making an effort to comply. Also, this lawsuit is for dating apps specifically, but should pave the way for other categories to follow right? [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22917514/apple-netherlands-dating-apps-external-payment-processors-in-app-commission-acm https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22917514/apple-netherland...

ummonk 5y ago

> Even if the Dutch revenue isn't that much, once one country succeeds the rest will follow that model. The point of contention here isn’t about the Netherlands, but about whether the Dutch ruling will apply de facto globally. Apple wants to ensure it doesn’t, by requiring Netherlands-specific apps if enabling third party payment processors. The ACM wants it to apply globally.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Not necessarily: Apple could permit an app developer to allow third party payments in the same app, but only if the user was in the Netherlands. That's not a difficult code path to manage. The issue here is Apple is trying to frustrate any attempts to circumvent their payment processing: By both still demanding 27% fees, and also requiring they publish a separate app (likely requiring users to uninstall the main app and install the new one), Apple is trying to make it so onerous and painful to use third party payments that nobody will actually do so in practice.
- Someone 5y ago
  > By both still demanding 27% fees In the court case that led to this, the court required Apple to support third party payment processors, but rejected the claim that their 30% cut was outrageous. The EU also has regulations limiting how much payment services such as Mastercard can charge. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_730 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_...: “caps are set at 0.2% of the value of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards“ Given that, I don’t see how the same court could say a 3% margin for third party payment services is unfair. Requiring a new app, on the other hand, is the trouble area. It means losing App Store reviews, and, probably more importantly, means users can’t seamlessly upgrade to a version that supports a third party payment service. Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    > Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app. I think the apps here would be front ends to the same dating network.