7 ms·

There are two interesting questions: a) Will Apple not allow apps on the official App Store if they appear on third party ones. b) How will Apple collect thei

There are two interesting questions: a) Will Apple not allow apps on the official App Store if they appear on third party ones. b) How will Apple collect their commission. There is nothing in the regulation that says that they can't continue to do this.

pavlov 3y ago
"a) Will Apple not allow apps on the official App Store if they appear on third party ones." That would look very much like an anti-competitive move to the same EU regulators who are forcing Apple to open the store for competition reasons. Apple can continue to enforce their own rules on their own store, but demanding exclusivity probably isn't an option for them.
gjsman-1000 3y ago
> a) Will Apple not allow apps on the official App Store if they appear on third party ones. The EU almost certainly wouldn't allow it. > b) How will Apple collect their commission. There is nothing in the regulation that says that they can't continue to do this. See Denmark which has an App Store carveout for in-app purchases within dating apps. Basically, Apple wants records and reserves the right to audit. Considering this is more than in-app purchases, I would expect a requirement for an Apple Developer account and a legal agreement to get a process similar to notarization on macOS.
- threeseed 3y ago
  It will be interesting if it's the Denmark model or whether they put the responsibility on third party app stores to supply this data to Apple on behalf of the hosted apps. Either way third party app stores should end up being noticeably more expensive than using the official. Especially once they start having to deal with fraud, chargebacks etc.
  - dickersnoodle 3y ago
    And when they start seeing that extra expense they'll go whining to the EU regulators again.
- SllX 3y ago
  Netherlands, not Denmark. People from the Netherlands are Dutch and people from Denmark are Danish.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Ugh I hope not notarization. It's a real pain to deal with on Mac if you're building packages. And also a privacy leak as it used to send the app hash to Apple on every launch. This has now been reduced to once a week but still.. Luckily it can still be avoided by turning off gatekeeper.
orra 3y ago
Of course they can't collect ”commission” on payments they're not involved with. The entire point of the Act is to crack down on anticompetitive behaviour. Your example is textbook, and I am certain the text of the law bans it.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Apple can absolutely collect their 15-30% commission. You are using their developer tools and SDKs and like other tooling e.g. game engines they can recoup this cost through a per-sale model.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    I think it's more a matter of "is there a way that complies with the wording and intent of the DMA" than "is there a way to separate the commission from the App Store app itself". Even then, if it's not what the regulators intend it wouldn't be allowed to stand. This isn't a case of breaking some ancient law or technicality and needing to shore up, it's a brand new law with the intent of stopping this kind of practice hindering markets. They tried similar minded tactics already with the Dutch complaints already and they weren't blindly accepted.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Wording and intent of the DMA makes no reference to commissions. And there is nothing anti-competitive about Apple charging for their developer kit.
      - mdhb 3y ago
        Is there a reason why you’re speaking with such certainty? Are you a lawyer specialising in the topic? Do you actually know anything about this or is this just your opinion presented as fact?
        orra 3y ago
micwag 3y ago
a) This is explicitly forbidden b) Apple is free to act as payment provider, but can't force businesses to use it. If they decide to do it anyway: In case a gatekeeper does not comply with the obligations laid out in the DMA, the Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the company's total worldwide turnover, which can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement. In case of systematic infringements, the Commission is also empowered to adopt additional remedies such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it, or banning the gatekeeper from acquiring additional services related to the systemic non-compliance. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_... Apples iMessage is also currently evaluated. In a total coincidence Apple also announced recently that RCS support is coming.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  Strange that they can be fined based on worldwide turnover for rules broken in the EU.
  - 9point6 3y ago
    This is how these EU regulations get their teeth: turnover not profit and global not local to a region—they can't creatively account their way out of the fine and it's always going to be big enough to really want to avoid, no matter the size of the company. None of this "the fine is just the permit fee for those that can afford it" attitude.
    - theshrike79 3y ago
      And it's not the company, it's the whole conglomerate. So Google can't just make an EU subsidiary that never makes a profit and thus the fines don't have teeth. It's the global turnover of Alphabet Corporation.
      - extraduder_ire 3y ago
        I have to assume at least one company is going to try setting up a company, completely divesting from it, and contracting it to perform operations in the EU. With an open process for tender, even. Not that it'd work, but might be amusing.

pavlov 3y ago

"a) Will Apple not allow apps on the official App Store if they appear on third party ones." That would look very much like an anti-competitive move to the same EU regulators who are forcing Apple to open the store for competition reasons. Apple can continue to enforce their own rules on their own store, but demanding exclusivity probably isn't an option for them.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> a) Will Apple not allow apps on the official App Store if they appear on third party ones. The EU almost certainly wouldn't allow it. > b) How will Apple collect their commission. There is nothing in the regulation that says that they can't continue to do this. See Denmark which has an App Store carveout for in-app purchases within dating apps. Basically, Apple wants records and reserves the right to audit. Considering this is more than in-app purchases, I would expect a requirement for an Apple Developer account and a legal agreement to get a process similar to notarization on macOS.

threeseed 3y ago
It will be interesting if it's the Denmark model or whether they put the responsibility on third party app stores to supply this data to Apple on behalf of the hosted apps. Either way third party app stores should end up being noticeably more expensive than using the official. Especially once they start having to deal with fraud, chargebacks etc.
- dickersnoodle 3y ago
  And when they start seeing that extra expense they'll go whining to the EU regulators again.
SllX 3y ago
Netherlands, not Denmark. People from the Netherlands are Dutch and people from Denmark are Danish.
wkat4242 3y ago
Ugh I hope not notarization. It's a real pain to deal with on Mac if you're building packages. And also a privacy leak as it used to send the app hash to Apple on every launch. This has now been reduced to once a week but still.. Luckily it can still be avoided by turning off gatekeeper.

orra 3y ago

Of course they can't collect ”commission” on payments they're not involved with. The entire point of the Act is to crack down on anticompetitive behaviour. Your example is textbook, and I am certain the text of the law bans it.

threeseed 3y ago
Apple can absolutely collect their 15-30% commission. You are using their developer tools and SDKs and like other tooling e.g. game engines they can recoup this cost through a per-sale model.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I think it's more a matter of "is there a way that complies with the wording and intent of the DMA" than "is there a way to separate the commission from the App Store app itself". Even then, if it's not what the regulators intend it wouldn't be allowed to stand. This isn't a case of breaking some ancient law or technicality and needing to shore up, it's a brand new law with the intent of stopping this kind of practice hindering markets. They tried similar minded tactics already with the Dutch complaints already and they weren't blindly accepted.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Wording and intent of the DMA makes no reference to commissions. And there is nothing anti-competitive about Apple charging for their developer kit.
    - mdhb 3y ago
      Is there a reason why you’re speaking with such certainty? Are you a lawyer specialising in the topic? Do you actually know anything about this or is this just your opinion presented as fact?
      - orra 3y ago

micwag 3y ago

a) This is explicitly forbidden b) Apple is free to act as payment provider, but can't force businesses to use it. If they decide to do it anyway: In case a gatekeeper does not comply with the obligations laid out in the DMA, the Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the company's total worldwide turnover, which can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement. In case of systematic infringements, the Commission is also empowered to adopt additional remedies such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it, or banning the gatekeeper from acquiring additional services related to the systemic non-compliance. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2349 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_... Apples iMessage is also currently evaluated. In a total coincidence Apple also announced recently that RCS support is coming.

bdcravens 3y ago
Strange that they can be fined based on worldwide turnover for rules broken in the EU.
- 9point6 3y ago
  This is how these EU regulations get their teeth: turnover not profit and global not local to a region—they can't creatively account their way out of the fine and it's always going to be big enough to really want to avoid, no matter the size of the company. None of this "the fine is just the permit fee for those that can afford it" attitude.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    And it's not the company, it's the whole conglomerate. So Google can't just make an EU subsidiary that never makes a profit and thus the fines don't have teeth. It's the global turnover of Alphabet Corporation.
    - extraduder_ire 3y ago
      I have to assume at least one company is going to try setting up a company, completely divesting from it, and contracting it to perform operations in the EU. With an open process for tender, even. Not that it'd work, but might be amusing.