30 ms·

Apple found in breach of EU competition rules

713 points by malermeister 2y ago

martijnarts 2y ago
Here's the actual EC press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3433 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... It's very readable!
- input_sh 2y ago
  And it's been submitted, making this a dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806
madeofpalk 2y ago
You can feel however you want about Apple's rules and EU regulation, but I think it's pretty indispuitable how wrong it is that Apple prevents developers from explaining these rules to their users. Apple prevents developers from saying that Apple takes a % cut of the sale. Apple prevents developers from saying its available cheaper elsewhere. If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers? Consistently these anti-steering rules are what gets Apple in trouble all around the world. It's the one part Apple lost in the US Epic case, and it's the EUs first point on their breach. Apple has done this to themselves by being so stubborn and refusing to budge an inch on how they run their platforms. The tiniest concession years ago could have avoided all this regulation on them.
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  Fair or not, but it is very good business model. Smart people realised, that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases. Solution: create your own alternative to open market - be the market (and write rules for it) Apple will do a lot to keep this cash cow at peak performance.
  - malermeister 2y ago
    The core raison d'etre for the EU is open markets. They'll do a lot to keep their fundamental core principle.
    - izolate 2y ago
      The billions in agricultural subsidies, strict regulations, and non-tariff barriers that make it difficult for non-EU companies to compete suggest otherwise to me.
      - malermeister 2y ago
        Open markets != unregulated markets.
        stoperaticless 2y ago
        EU is not about “open for all”, but “open among members”.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    And who will win? Those "smart people"(I hate this word, being nefarious is not smart, and stop gaslighting us by humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation doing illegal things, as "people") creating their own market monopoly, or the regulatory bodies of large governments that can regulate those monopolies in their regions? History tells us that the institutions with laws, guns, judges and a monopoly on violence rules over "smart people" who just make phones. Apple's only retaliation is making life shit for EU users or pulling out of the EU market which they won't because that would leave a China style vacuum that Google or a local EU competitor will take after a period of painfull transition for the EU consumers. The EU consumers can live without iPhones. Can Apple's shareholders live without Eu's profits?
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > I hate this word, let's stop being gaslighted humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation as "people" It's not gaslighting. People work for the company, and they decided. You're dehumanising them by saying they aren't human.
- ankit219 2y ago
  Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? I read somewhere (I think Epic v Apple) where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases. I can understand the viewpoint that Apple customers might expect the same functionality if they purchase directly on site. But then, let the developer explain that too. "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" is a fair enough line that can be mandated just like they mandated everything else. Think they will have to do away with it eventually, though from the outside it looks like they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things.
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    > they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things. This. EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies who abuse users data rights, use monopolies to push EU companies out of the market, and use accounting tricks to barely pay any taxes. Therefore, the EU has to be fining Apple and Google for something. If not this, then it'll be something else.
    - IsTom 2y ago
      EU's single biggest win is free and open Single Market and it will fight to keep it so. It doesn't matter where companies come from – if you look at e.g. GDPR enforcement tracker you'll see they're as eager to keep internal EU companies in line.
      - robertfall 2y ago
        Yea, but that's not so true for the DMA. They're only targeting foreign companies using it.
        martimarkov 2y ago
        Any evidence for this? Which big domestic company is a gatekeeper and not being targeted by the EU?
- isodev 2y ago
  Add to that the fact that the App Store only supports certain kinds of payment and subscription formats. Paid major upgrades, volume discounts for apps with IAPs or subscriptions , etc. - not possible at all. Apple's restrictions are so deep as to dictate the very way we choose to monetize our apps. And all the fearmongering about choosing to publish to an alternative store. It needs to stop.
  - cageface 2y ago
    No paid upgrades is the huge issue. By fiat they eliminated the mechanism by which small developers survived for decades before the app store. It couldn't be any harder for them to support than the crazy IAP dance they make you do instead or the subscriptions they foist on everything.
  - strongpigeon 2y ago
    They also implicitly prevent businesses where the margins are less than 30% unless it relies on ads.
- mrtksn 2y ago
  I wonder if everything would have been simple if the regulation itself was something death-simple like: If you control the software of the hardware you sell, you must refund with the inflation adjusted sums the users at any time they return their hardware. This way, companies can choose if they are renting platforms they deliver their services like the TV boxes some cable providers will rent, or of they are selling products and the users can choose to do whatever they like with it. The makers can still provide and and sell services on devices they built but they will have to be good at it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmontra 2y ago
    How would it play out? A scenario is that I could buy an iPhone for 1000 Euro, use it for one year, return it, get my 1k back and use it to buy a newer model. Basically they would be working for free or they'd have to increase the price of 1k per year, with huge discounts for whoever swaps an Android for an iPhone.
    - mrtksn 2y ago
      It would be up to them to choose their models. If they want to keep the closed model where you can't use the device you purchase in absence of Apple, they will have to charge accordingly for the device and services and do the refunds if the user no longer want the device. I guess people would like yearly updates, so Apple will have to operate drastically differently to keep the closed platform model. Alternatively, they can sell the devices as today and provide a method to install any software the user wishes and even to remove iOS from the device. I guess they will be required to produce a basic documentation on all this so others can create the alternative services but wouldn't be required to modify their own software and services.
      - pmontra 2y ago
        So, the device is sold at a loss at 100 Euro but it doesn't work without mandatory services that cost 500 Euro per year?
- knallfrosch 2y ago
  If Apple had any competitive ground to stand on, it would not bother banning other app stores. Customers would love to pay the 30% Apple tax for security and the great selection of apps.
  - mrbigbob 2y ago
    i dont think apple is too concerned with the end user using a 3rd party store but the large companies having the ability to host their app on a 3rd party store sidestepping apples fee entirely. thats what truely scares them.
  - grishka 2y ago
    MacOS is a great example of what happens when that competitive ground does exist. Most Mac apps are distributed outside of the app store, some aren't even notarized.
    - mgrandl 2y ago
      Yes because developers don’t want to pay $100 to then go through a super annoying notarization process to distribute their FOSS app.
    - burnerthrow008 2y ago
      Yes, it is! Look at how much smaller MacOS market share is compared to iOS in their respective markets. Stated preference vs. revealed preference.
      - grishka 2y ago
        US and Japan are the two unusual countries where iOS has more market share than Android. In the rest of the world, iOS is maybe 20%. For computers the situation is exacerbated by the fact that many people own one mostly for gaming, which means it's going to be Windows. Whereas an iPhone is considered a status symbol.
        rmbyrro 2y ago
- seventyone 2y ago
  > If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers? Because if would harm shareholder value. You don't need a more complicated explanation about the whole situation.
  - ang_cire 2y ago
    If customers being informed about your business practices will result in harm to shareholder value, you've got a problem.
    - seventyone 2y ago
      But they will ride high in a pile of money until the curtain is drawn back. It's worth it to them
- toasterlovin 2y ago
  Anti-steering rules are completely normal in contracts between cooperating commercial entities. We sell on Amazon and we’re not allowed to steer Amazon’s customers off of Amazon. Amazon disables hyperlinks in the messaging system for communicating with customers. They rejected our PDF spec sheets for having links to our website. They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site. And, honestly, they’re completely justified, IMO. They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase. Why should they then have to allow us to steer that customer off of their site to complete the sale? Of course, we’re still allowed to sell outside of Amazon, but we have to do all the legwork to get customers. And, being in the midst of an effort to do just that, it’s a huge amount of work, so I think they’re justified in not wanting us to poach their customers.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    I understand why Amazon won't allow you to link to your store directly but >They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site. This sounds pretty shady
    - toasterlovin 2y ago
      We don’t have a right to sell on their site. If we want access to their customers and exposure for our products, they want to make sure they’re not being undercut on pricing (since they know customers will price shop).
      - Mordisquitos 2y ago
        If even after stopping you from linking to your own site Amazon still fears their customers will price shop by their own accord then: a) Amazon is implicitly admitting that their shopping platform is not so special: if customers could find cheaper suppliers of your product that would be enough for Amazon to be outcompeted. b) Amazon is indisputably engaging in anticompetitive practices by forbidding you from even selling at a cheaper price with the only justification of "we do not want price competition to even exist"
- thefounder 2y ago
  I think visa and Mastercard have the same behaviour even supported by the governments. You can’t add the visa fee to the checkout.
  - BooneJS 2y ago
    And yet several places do. “Menu reflects cash prices” and “tuition payment via credit card will be subject to a 3.5% fee” are 2 I got this week.
  - bhelkey 2y ago
    The EU regulates credit card fees caping them at 0.3% [1]. That is roughly a fifth of the fees charged in the US and roughly two orders of magnitude smaller than Apple app store fees. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-card-based-payments.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-...
    - thefounder 2y ago
      I think that’s a different fee. As a merchant accepting credit card or debit card payments is going to cost you the same 2-3%. At least that’s what Stripe or local payment processors charge
      - bhelkey 2y ago
        Stripe charges 1.5% + €0.25 ($0.27) in the EU to accept EEA cards [1]. Stripe charges 2.9% + $0.30 for processing domestic cards in the US [2]. The reason it charges 1.4% more for accepting US cards is the US card fees (interchange fees). These fees are complicated and roughly five times more than European card fees [3]. [1] https://stripe.com/en-fr/pricing https://stripe.com/en-fr/pricing [2] https://stripe.com/pricing https://stripe.com/pricing [3] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-card-processing-fees https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-car...
  - criddell 2y ago
    It varies state-to-state. https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/business/can-a-business-charge-for-using-credit-card/#surcharge https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/business/can-a-busines...
- hulitu 2y ago
  > why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers? Because the ripped off customers must keep paying. Why pay 30% more ?
- grecy 2y ago
  > indispuitable how wrong it is that Apple prevents developers from explaining these rules to their users Absolutely. This is the same as giving Candy to a child and saying "don't tell anyone" or your boss saying you can't tell coworkers how much you're being paid. The fact they want to keep it a secret shows something fishy is going on, and they know it.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  Imagine if Steve Jobs was starting today, that famous super bowl advert from 1984 would allude to Apple, instead of IBM...
  - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
    ... Ouch. Not wrong.
  - ChildOfChaos 2y ago
    It's the cycle of most companies that are successful. Start as the rebel/upstart being more bold, fighting the system, disrupting, until they become big enough to become the system. It's just different games, as a startup you can't behave like a big corporation, so you use that strength to your advantage, as you get huge, you can't act like a more reckless upstart.
- ksec 2y ago
  Apple without Steve Jobs is 1. Not very good at explaining itself. 2. Not entirely sure why things are done in a certain way, they their changes it and revert to Steve jobs's way, or they refused to change and did not understand why Steve decided on doing certain things in the first place. 3. Not a very coherent company. Still better than most other companies except may be Jensen in Nvidia.
- biftek 2y ago
  Is there any marketplace that allows a seller to advertise a cheaper alternative within their marketplace?
  - sylens 2y ago
    Nobody is asking for the ability to put a label on their App Store listing that shows the price of the same software or subscription on the web. What they're doing is akin to dictating what the creator of a product could put in the manual or paperwork that comes in the box - you know, where you'll often find manufacturer's coupons and adverts for registering your product with their website.
    - biftek 2y ago
      Ok, guess I'm out of the loop then, I thought they already allowed that
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- standardUser 2y ago
  Apple is happy to deliberately create social strife among kids by blocking it's most social app from cross-platform use, just to eek out a few more phone sales. That would be bad enough if they weren't the market leader. The fact that they are brings it to the level of grotesque cruelty. The point being, Apple is clearly willing to use every trick and scheme possible to maintain dominance and should be regulated as such. They are begging for it.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  You think this is indisputable, but I don't see why there needs to be a law against these anti-steering rules.
orwin 2y ago
Apple currently has three sets of business terms governing its relationship with app developers, including the App Store's steering rules. The Commission preliminarily finds that: - None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels. - Under most of the business terms available to app developers, Apple allows steering only through “link-outs”, i.e., app developers can include a link in their app that redirects the customer to a web page where the customer can conclude a contract. The link-out process is subject to several restrictions imposed by Apple that prevent app developers from communicating, promoting offers and concluding contracts through the distribution channel of their choice. - Whilst Apple can receive a fee for facilitating via the AppStore the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers, the fees charged by Apple go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration. For example, Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app. [edit] I will add one thing: right now, i'm rich enough that i wouldn't care about paying 30% less if it saves me the hassle of using a new payment processor, and i think this is the case for most people here, or even most people using Apple phones. But 10 years ago when i was scraping by, i had a phone that was given to me (not an iphone, but it could have been), and i would totally do everything i could to save 33% on anything (mostly food tbh). T=Not allowing link out and price discovery is not only anti-market, it's anti-poor.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > T=Not allowing link out and price discovery is not only anti-market, it's anti-poor. What shops list their own markup? If I go to a supermarket I don't see what the markup is the shop adds. I just see the price here vs the price there. I did that when I didn't have any money as well. It seems to work.
  - rahkiin 2y ago
    I also do not see where else I can buy it, or prices of other shops for the same product. I also do not see products in shop A tell me I should go to shop B instead. Wasn’t the shop model what they copied?
penguinbasher 2y ago
Apple's app-store policies are anti-competitive. Even though they recently 'allowed' (How kind of them) publishers to create a link to an external form of payment, where the offer may be better, Apple still demands a significant slice of commission. I think many users would continue to use in-app purchases as it is a convenient way to pay, but the actions from Apple are poor and heavily restrictive. To save yourself some money, if subscribing, always go to the website, you'll get a better offer than within the app and more of your money will go to the publisher.
- sem000 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - noitpmeder 2y ago
    Well that sounds like complete nonsense. As an Apple user id definitely take advantage of cheaper ways to purchase the exact same product. Furthermore - No one is forcing anyone to click the "get this cheaper here" link ... But I'd bet you'd be surprised how many Apple users would click it if it was there. The user and developer both win in that situation.
  - tikkabhuna 2y ago
    That should be an informed decision. If users are happy to pay extra to Apple for convenience of use, then they should be aware of what is happening. If 95%, like you say, are happy to pay extra, then it should be no problem for Apple to allow developers to communicate the Apple fees.
    - madeofpalk 2y ago
      If users don't want to go to other websites, then developers should notice they're losing sales and be incentivised to offer a more convenient option! Maybe over time more integrated options could emergy that's as convenient, offers more features, and could be cheaper. Imagine if there was competition!
  - 2y ago
EMIRELADERO 2y ago
Here's some context which a lot of people, including most news media, seem to have missed: The reason Apple is still playing games with the EC is that they're waiting on an EU Court's ruling[1] on whether Article 6 (7), the provision that mandates free of charge iOS APIs for all developers, is "constitutional" within the EU framework itself. Most people who call out the Core Technology Fee use that provision as one of their main arguments, and it's one of their strongest, because the "free of charge" language throws away the general idea that the law doesn't want to interfere with Apple's monetization strategies. Since Apple could very well have chosen to monetize certain local API access in the past, the fact that this provision put a stop to that effectively nullifies Apple's argument (to the courts) that the law could never have meant to actually control how they make money. [1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BRD%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BT2023%2F1080%2FP&nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=T&num=T-1080%252F23&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&oqp=&td=%3BALL&avg=&lgrec=en&lg=&cid=3423184 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BR...
- graemep 2y ago
  The problem is that apple is going to continue malicious compliance while the EU is trying to be reasonable: "the EU hopes ongoing dialogue will lead to compliance rather than sanctions."
  - musictubes 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nomel 2y ago
      Could anyone help me understand why this was flagged dead? Is it incorrect somehow? This is a discussion around legality, so it makes sense to keep the discussion in that context. Apple being able to do something undesirable, in the perspective in the intent of the law, is either a "loophole" in the law, or the law doesn't actually accomplish what it was made to. Both are problems with the law. This isn't an Apple thing as much as a "anyone who will benefit in complying minimally will comply minimally". Apple today, whomever else tomorrow.
numair 2y ago
This is ridiculous. The EU has a complete axe to grind against Apple, for reasons that I believe border on corruption (if not, veer completely into it). Meanwhile, Meta has a near-monopoly on social networking in the Western world and is subject to a slap on the wrist at best. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, one of the best friends of the current EU Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, is currently on Meta's payroll. For this reason alone, the current EU Competition Commissioner should recuse herself from being involved in this role. There are other reasons, including direct conversations I have had with co-founders of Meta regarding EU commissioners, that cause me to have very little faith in these people to act fairly, or to do little other than carry out Meta's very long agenda to be able to ride on top of Apple's platform and deliver their own App Store with their own currency (remember Facebook Credits, anyone?) and completely replace iMessage etc for people who live within the mass-scale dystopia that is the Facebook-Instagram-WhatsApp Industrial Complex. Meta is a total monopoly that causes daily harm to society, and yet this is what the EU finds itself obsessed with. These people should be ashamed of themselves. And, they should release the records of every meeting and every communication they have with Meta and its various lobbyists, and the children/spouses of these people (because they love using the family connection to avoid scrutiny, as evidenced by their hiring of various congresspeople's children in roles that make no sense).
- gield 2y ago
  The EU fined Meta for 1.2 billion dollars last year, the largest GDPR fine ever [1]. And last month, the EU announced another investigation into Meta [2]. [1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-facebook-result-edpb-binding-decision_en https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fi... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2664 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
- Sprotch 2y ago
  I suggest you read the EU's press release. I don't understand how anyone could side with Apple on this. Link: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3433 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
- 2y ago
jstsch 2y ago
As a EU-citizen, I'm not happy with this legislation and enforcement. I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to go with Android. Those phones are much cheaper and are very much the same quality-wise (performance, screen, form factor...). The same goes with iOS on iPad. I'm very happy that my parents can use those devices versus a Windows machine (or even a MacBook) and know that they are pretty much safe from malware. Even now, I noticed that with the mandatory browser selection screen both my parents independently have moved on from built-in Safari to Chrome (independently), since that was the only browser name they know. And now they are in a much worse position privacy-wise than before. Which is certainly not in the spirit of the GDPR and DMA.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of Apple's control impact your enjoyment of your devices?
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    The general argument is that the changes end up being annoying. Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience
    - alt227 2y ago
      I never understand this argument. iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them? There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.
      - 2y ago
endisneigh 2y ago
Many years ago I would have said Apple would never leave the EU, but now I’d say it’s firmly in the “possible” territory. Maybe it’s a win for both parties of Apple leaves the EU, though I’m skeptical any homegrown EU product would have any traction unless they also force Google to divest Android. I’d love to know how much work it is for Apple to comply and deal with the EU regulatory environment. Interesting times.
- chipweinberger 2y ago
  Might not be homegrown. Anyone could come in. Would be a nice enticement too.
- andersa 2y ago
  Apple has invested more work into malicious non-compliance than it would have taken to simply do it right the first time.
- hifromwork 2y ago
  Why would apple leave the EU? It's a huge market, and I don't think there is a risk of their profit in the EU going negative because of some relatively small concessions. They can keep existing rules for the rest of the world and change them slightly for the EU. Unless they are afraid that other countries will demand the same if they budge?
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    China is a huge market and Google left. Anything is possible.
    - user_7832 2y ago
      The EU is much closer to the US than China is, however.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Apple hasn't left China though, why would they leave Europe that has much less regulatory issues?
gargs 2y ago
Surely, Apple will respond by artificially hampering one or more of their products in the EU and hence take away even the slightest reason to upgrade hardware in the name of Apple Intelligence. Customers need a company that acts and reasons like an adult.
- aikinai 2y ago
  You’re obviously insinuating that they are delaying features in the EU just to be petty, but the ostensible reason is plenty compelling on its own. The EU regulations will require them to do insane amounts of custom work building a public API for Apple Intelligence. Imagine how hard it will be to make that interface secure, private, not terrible for users. The other features like mirroring are much simpler, but still, is it worth making a public interface and taking the security and privacy risks just to offer the feature in the EU? Every new feature in the EU is now a massive liability, so of course they’re going to be more cautious what they release.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    The idea that any third party app could (a) record my screen 24/7 in the background or (b) have full access to all of the data on my phone would be beyond unacceptable. Everyone rightly criticised Microsoft for providing such a capability and they would do the same with Apple as well. EU would be insane to push Apple on this.
    - ginko 2y ago
      >The idea that any third party app could (a) record my screen 24/7 in the background or (b) have full access to all of the data on my phone would be beyond unacceptable. Such an app would be breaking GDPR.
      - alt227 2y ago
        > Such an app would be breaking GDPR. Obviously not https://www.rewind.ai/ https://www.rewind.ai/ GDPR has no bearing on what apps can and cant do, as long as they ask you permission for their use of personal data first.
sccxy 2y ago
I guess reasonable fine for this breach is 30% of revenue in EU just like in the app store.
- moffkalast 2y ago
  Maybe they ought to fine Apple 50 cents per installed app from their App Store, since apparently they consider that perfectly fine and reasonable.
- NayamAmarshe 2y ago
  Don't forget the $99 per app.
  - m3kw9 2y ago
    wrong, its 99 per developer
  - treeFall 2y ago
    Even if you don't want an app, you have to pay $99 for the privilege of a "Login with Apple" button on your website.
    - alt227 2y ago
      Or even 'Pay with Apple Pay' on your website.
    - tzs 2y ago
      So?
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  The fine is up to 10% of global revenue, but that's not far from the 30% of revenue from EU.
- xvector 2y ago
  Maybe we should just fine any company 100% of revenue if they breach a law, since that's just as arbitrary of a number and makes our region more money.
classified 2y ago
So when do we address the elephant in the room and designate Apple a Criminal Enterprise™?
epolanski 2y ago
Apple keeps half assing its compliance in EU, thinking their malicious compliance will fly. They want to learn it won't work through their wallets.
- llm_nerd 2y ago
  It's fairly standard corporate behaviour, and ultimately it pays off handsomely for Apple. They slow walked implementing a solution to prior censure, and then provided a solution that is laughable, but it starts the whole process again. Now Apple has a year to get some sort of real solution in. During the intervening periods they will have made billions they wouldn't have if they actually implemented a good faith, good intentions response the first time around.
  - blackoil 2y ago
    Assuming EU won't slap a $30B fine. this approach didn't work very well for MS.
_xnmw 2y ago
While I think Apple's rules are ridiculous, it is pretty standard in the industry. AirBnB doesn't allow hosts to accept cash or arrange alternative payment. Amazon doesn't allow suppliers to offer direct sales to potential customers. Even Visa and Mastercard officially don't allow merchants to offer discounts for cash transactions (although many do anyway). Etc, etc. I think this should be a more general rule, no "platform" or "aggregator" should be allowed to prevent the free communication of users of their platform from arranging their deal elsewhere. Just because they met on the platform doesn't give the right to the platform to strong-arm their users into using them. The platform must compete with alternative payment methods on its own merits, such as convenience, security, etc., not by forcing people to use them just because they happen to be the matchmaker. Because this policy cements monopolies and rewards the largest incumbents.
- xandrius 2y ago
  Gotta start somewhere, going for the Trillion dollar behemoth is a good first step, in my opinion. And let's not forget that this standard is a de facto standard, not a regulatory one. Just because things have been done in this way, it doesn't mean they should remain like this forever. The EU is one of the few parties which can actually bring some change.
  - KerrAvon 2y ago
    Then it should do so broadly and inclusive of actual technical expertise. It’s nitpicking fluff because Epic and Spotify are mad, and not addressing root causes. It’s easy (and often deserved) to dunk on the trillion-dollar corporation. And regulation is good, actually. But the DMA isn’t good regulation.
    - avianlyric 2y ago
      I’m not sure how they could have gone broader. The EU is saying that Apple payments offering need to compete on level playing field with other payment options. I don’t really see what being “inclusive of technical expertise” would bring to the table, beyond what’s already there.
mirzap 2y ago
The EU is too soft with Apple. Apple has consistently shown harmful intentions towards users, and it needs to change. They have had numerous opportunities to change but have refused to do so. I'm a big fan of Apple products, but I cannot accept the fact that I cannot install apps on my device from any source I want. Even if I develop my own app, I cannot install it on my iPhone. Why is the iPhone different from the Mac? It should be just as easy to install an app on the iPhone, simply download it and you're done, or drag and drop it from the desktop. I hope the EU sets a precedent once and for all with a maximum fine (10% of global revenue).
- xandrius 2y ago
  To be fair, if you develop the app yourself you can install it on your iPhone without any problem, you connect your phone and install it through Xcode.
  - MilaM 2y ago
    True, but you have to rebuild the app every six or seven days, because it stops working. Unless you shell out for the paid developer account I think. Then your apps won't expire. My guess is that Apple thinks this route could be used to circumvent the App Store.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Then your apps won't expire. Correction: then your apps will last a year before they expire. You'll still need to reinstall yearly.
  - _lvbh 2y ago
    That still requires a MacBook. It makes it almost impossible for open source developers to make applications for IOS
    - xandrius 2y ago
      Open source != owning a mac I agree that the hardware requirement is bullshit and mostly unnecessary.
_xnmw 2y ago
Apple's App Store policy is unbelievably ridiculously hubristic. Imagine if Google/Microsoft charged you 30% of your entire business just because you ran it on top of Excel/Sheets and Gmail/Outlook. Or if Adobe took a 30% royalty from all artists creative works. It's madness, plain and simple. Developers already pay an annual fee to publish to the App Store, and consumers pay massive dollar to buy their iDevices. And yet they still have the nerve to demand 30% of entire business revenue, and charge a tax even when conducted outside of the App Store (so-called Core Technology Fee)? Even most governments in the world don't tax out-of-jurisdiction income.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  > Imagine Google's Play Store and Microsoft's Xbox charge the same as Apple's App Store. Microsoft's Windows Store charges less, but nobody uses it store anyway.
  - yokoprime 2y ago
    Because side-loading is a thing that works well on Windows.
    - alt227 2y ago
      Not only works well, but is the default accepted way of installing applications.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      That's true, but on the other hand you have Steam, et al. that are popular in spite of that. Or the Mac App Store on macOS.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Imagine if Steam took 30% of all sales on their platform! Or if Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft charged developers 30% for online app sales! (Spoiler: they all do). There are lots of things worth criticizing about Apple's model, but I'll never understand the fixation on the 30% rule. They provide a distribution platform that is every bit as robust and has a much larger reach than the video game consoles, and if they want to charge the same prices as the consoles I don't see why that's the hill to die on when there are so many other things that are more obviously rotten.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
m3kw9 2y ago
Apple's services in the app store(in app purchase system, refunds, API's, app store distribution infrastructure) is indisputly useful and deserved to be paid, however, it could be time to relax the fee circumventing rules since they are so big and has a target on their backs now.
kingsleyopara 2y ago
I don't understand why so many people think that if Apple didn't take a percentage cut of sales, prices would go down. Products are typically priced at what customers are willing to pay, which likely wouldn't change. The developer would simply earn more. The only real benefit to customers might be the existence of some apps with extremely thin margins that wouldn't be viable otherwise. As a developer, I naturally approve this though.
- gostsamo 2y ago
  Because there are price sensitive users and many services would prefer to share those 30% with them instead of losing the business. Because even if the developer gets the money, they will invest them in their product instead of them going to Apple. Because even if they don't invest them, more money on the market will incentivize more developers who will create competition. Because even nothing changes, this means more money around the world instead of being concentrated in the Apple shareholders who will use them to create even more locked gardens.
  - kingsleyopara 2y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. If a product is already priced optimally, lowering the price to capture price-sensitive users would reduce overall revenue, right? Profitable developers set prices based on what the market will bear, not the cost structure. Also, I'm not sure all developers would reinvest additional earnings into their products rather than just increase profit margins or divert funds elsewhere. I agree on the economic redistribution point though.
    - gostsamo 2y ago
      The current optimal price is set with the extra cost of Apple rentiering included on the production side. Minus that cost, the developer might find another optimum.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
      > I'm not sure all developers would reinvest additional earnings into their products rather than just increase profit margins or divert funds elsewhere A mega corporation like Apple is much less likely to do this than a smaller company, though. Apple's quarterly dividend is literally the company communicating that they make so much money they can't think of anything better to do with it than just giving it away to the investors.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] Some more discussion on the official commission release: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806
retskrad 2y ago
What makes Apple such a unique company beloved by billions of people and such a valuable company for investors is because there’s no other company like Apple. It’s the only company that has managed to be a successful software AND hardware company, it has 3 extremely popular operating systems (iOS, ipadOS, MacOS) and the only company that is vertically integrated from top down. Wait it gets better. There are no laws in the books that says what Apple is doing is illegal. Apple’s culture might be Steve Jobs’ greatest product.
- blackoil 2y ago
  > There are no laws in the books that says what Apple is doing is illegal. Ummm. The whole discussion is that allegedly Apple is not compliant with DMA.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Rohansi 2y ago
  I wouldn't consider iPadOS different from iOS. They realistically share 99% or more of their code with each other and just lock down features because of hardware/form factor differences. You also left out watchOS which is based on iOS.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Commenting here for posterity when Apple loses their antitrust case. Smile! ♫ ♪ ♬ You're on candid camera~ ♪ ♬ ♫
oblio 2y ago
That was quick.
ang_cire 2y ago
I'm excited to see where this goes. Whether you agree or disagree with Apple, them losing (or even just lessening) their monopoly status would make room for new and upcoming businesses. New apps, new app stores, etc etc. Disruption may not always turn out better in the end, but if the status quo is not good, it's often worth the risk. "Move fast and break stuff" is very divisive, because of course 'stuff' could include optimal stuff, people, the environment, etc. "Move fast and break monopolies" on the other hand, should, as a forum for startup aspirants, be pretty easy to agree on.
topherPedersen 2y ago
I wish the United States would follow the EU on this. It's insane that 1 company has near complete control over what software can and cannot be published, and they get to take a tax on all software sold. Absolutely insane. Obviously there's web, Android, Windows, Linux, gaming consoles, and smart tvs, so there are some work-arounds to avoid the evil empire, but most consumers here in the United States use iPhones and probably have no idea that Apple is taxing all of the app developers and exercising complete editorial control over all software published for the iPhone. Do you think consumers know that Apple literally reviews all software companies products and then decide whether they will allow that company or product to exist? Even worse, its not even high level executives making these decisions, it's $20 an hour employees on their App Review Board making these decisions to kill entire companies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- multimoon 2y ago
  Could you just not buy their products then? While there are more consumer friendly ways to do it sure, I don’t see anything illegal or wrong here. You’re buying their hardware, with the software licensing understanding that comes with it - if you don’t like the terms you don’t buy the hardware. There isn’t a moral calculus that is or needs to be involved here, it’s a simple flat “don’t buy their product if you don’t like it”. If enough people cared and did so, they’d change very quickly. Apple isn’t a monopoly, there are plenty of alternatives that might suit your needs better.
  - ZoomerCretin 2y ago
    Like a lot of anti-monopoly laws, the harmed party is not the consumer but other businesses. No, you cannot simply refuse to give Apple their 30% (unless you are yourself big enough to negotiate an exemption; including waiving a 30% fee of your own for Apple's apps on your platforms) if you want access to their huge and very lucrative market. Microsoft lost an anti-monopoly case because they bundled a free browser with Windows. Forcing your competitors to pay 30% and thus have higher costs and prices than your own competing services is a much more straightforward violation.
indiantinker 2y ago
Wow! What if Apple decided to stop operating in EU altogether ?
- xvector 2y ago
  The EU would rapidly collapse if US big tech pulled out. It actively prevents the development of a flourishing tech industry.
  - postalrat 2y ago
    Nah, there would just be more Androids phones sold.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Google's Android?
nuker 2y ago
What EU is doing is wrong. There are costs in running App Store, and asking for it to be fee free does not make sense. Allowing 3rd party Stores will wide open mass public to scams, data leaks and worse. Developers are getting a very good deal for their small fee by SW industry metrics. Their apps gets displayed and sold by Apple, all things covered, no chargebacks, no running costs. I feel threatened as a user by what EU is doing. Next thing to expect - many apps will require(!) always on location...

713 points by malermeister 2y ago

Here's the actual EC press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3433 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_... It's very readable!

input_sh 2y ago
And it's been submitted, making this a dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806

madeofpalk 2y ago

You can feel however you want about Apple's rules and EU regulation, but I think it's pretty indispuitable how wrong it is that Apple prevents developers from explaining these rules to their users. Apple prevents developers from saying that Apple takes a % cut of the sale. Apple prevents developers from saying its available cheaper elsewhere. If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers? Consistently these anti-steering rules are what gets Apple in trouble all around the world. It's the one part Apple lost in the US Epic case, and it's the EUs first point on their breach. Apple has done this to themselves by being so stubborn and refusing to budge an inch on how they run their platforms. The tiniest concession years ago could have avoided all this regulation on them.

stoperaticless 2y ago
Fair or not, but it is very good business model. Smart people realised, that in open market profits will go to zero as competition increases. Solution: create your own alternative to open market - be the market (and write rules for it) Apple will do a lot to keep this cash cow at peak performance.
- malermeister 2y ago
  The core raison d'etre for the EU is open markets. They'll do a lot to keep their fundamental core principle.
  - izolate 2y ago
    The billions in agricultural subsidies, strict regulations, and non-tariff barriers that make it difficult for non-EU companies to compete suggest otherwise to me.
    - malermeister 2y ago
      Open markets != unregulated markets.
      - stoperaticless 2y ago
        EU is not about “open for all”, but “open among members”.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  And who will win? Those "smart people"(I hate this word, being nefarious is not smart, and stop gaslighting us by humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation doing illegal things, as "people") creating their own market monopoly, or the regulatory bodies of large governments that can regulate those monopolies in their regions? History tells us that the institutions with laws, guns, judges and a monopoly on violence rules over "smart people" who just make phones. Apple's only retaliation is making life shit for EU users or pulling out of the EU market which they won't because that would leave a China style vacuum that Google or a local EU competitor will take after a period of painfull transition for the EU consumers. The EU consumers can live without iPhones. Can Apple's shareholders live without Eu's profits?
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > I hate this word, let's stop being gaslighted humanizing an evil multi trillion corporation as "people" It's not gaslighting. People work for the company, and they decided. You're dehumanising them by saying they aren't human.
ankit219 2y ago
Have they ever specified any reason why they prevent users from finding this out? I read somewhere (I think Epic v Apple) where the judge surmised that App store model was not just payments but the whole mechanism of tracking subscriptions, cancel and refunds, and standard pricing for purchases. I can understand the viewpoint that Apple customers might expect the same functionality if they purchase directly on site. But then, let the developer explain that too. "You can get this cheaper on website, but will no longer be able to cancel via App Store" is a fair enough line that can be mandated just like they mandated everything else. Think they will have to do away with it eventually, though from the outside it looks like they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things.
- londons_explore 2y ago
  > they think if they drag their feet on this, maybe regulators won't come for other things. This. EU politicians and EU voters want the EU to crack down on foreign tech companies who abuse users data rights, use monopolies to push EU companies out of the market, and use accounting tricks to barely pay any taxes. Therefore, the EU has to be fining Apple and Google for something. If not this, then it'll be something else.
  - IsTom 2y ago
    EU's single biggest win is free and open Single Market and it will fight to keep it so. It doesn't matter where companies come from – if you look at e.g. GDPR enforcement tracker you'll see they're as eager to keep internal EU companies in line.
    - robertfall 2y ago
      Yea, but that's not so true for the DMA. They're only targeting foreign companies using it.
      - martimarkov 2y ago
        Any evidence for this? Which big domestic company is a gatekeeper and not being targeted by the EU?
isodev 2y ago
Add to that the fact that the App Store only supports certain kinds of payment and subscription formats. Paid major upgrades, volume discounts for apps with IAPs or subscriptions , etc. - not possible at all. Apple's restrictions are so deep as to dictate the very way we choose to monetize our apps. And all the fearmongering about choosing to publish to an alternative store. It needs to stop.
- cageface 2y ago
  No paid upgrades is the huge issue. By fiat they eliminated the mechanism by which small developers survived for decades before the app store. It couldn't be any harder for them to support than the crazy IAP dance they make you do instead or the subscriptions they foist on everything.
- strongpigeon 2y ago
  They also implicitly prevent businesses where the margins are less than 30% unless it relies on ads.
mrtksn 2y ago
I wonder if everything would have been simple if the regulation itself was something death-simple like: If you control the software of the hardware you sell, you must refund with the inflation adjusted sums the users at any time they return their hardware. This way, companies can choose if they are renting platforms they deliver their services like the TV boxes some cable providers will rent, or of they are selling products and the users can choose to do whatever they like with it. The makers can still provide and and sell services on devices they built but they will have to be good at it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pmontra 2y ago
  How would it play out? A scenario is that I could buy an iPhone for 1000 Euro, use it for one year, return it, get my 1k back and use it to buy a newer model. Basically they would be working for free or they'd have to increase the price of 1k per year, with huge discounts for whoever swaps an Android for an iPhone.
  - mrtksn 2y ago
    It would be up to them to choose their models. If they want to keep the closed model where you can't use the device you purchase in absence of Apple, they will have to charge accordingly for the device and services and do the refunds if the user no longer want the device. I guess people would like yearly updates, so Apple will have to operate drastically differently to keep the closed platform model. Alternatively, they can sell the devices as today and provide a method to install any software the user wishes and even to remove iOS from the device. I guess they will be required to produce a basic documentation on all this so others can create the alternative services but wouldn't be required to modify their own software and services.
    - pmontra 2y ago
      So, the device is sold at a loss at 100 Euro but it doesn't work without mandatory services that cost 500 Euro per year?
knallfrosch 2y ago
If Apple had any competitive ground to stand on, it would not bother banning other app stores. Customers would love to pay the 30% Apple tax for security and the great selection of apps.
- mrbigbob 2y ago
  i dont think apple is too concerned with the end user using a 3rd party store but the large companies having the ability to host their app on a 3rd party store sidestepping apples fee entirely. thats what truely scares them.
- grishka 2y ago
  MacOS is a great example of what happens when that competitive ground does exist. Most Mac apps are distributed outside of the app store, some aren't even notarized.
  - mgrandl 2y ago
    Yes because developers don’t want to pay $100 to then go through a super annoying notarization process to distribute their FOSS app.
  - burnerthrow008 2y ago
    Yes, it is! Look at how much smaller MacOS market share is compared to iOS in their respective markets. Stated preference vs. revealed preference.
    - grishka 2y ago
      US and Japan are the two unusual countries where iOS has more market share than Android. In the rest of the world, iOS is maybe 20%. For computers the situation is exacerbated by the fact that many people own one mostly for gaming, which means it's going to be Windows. Whereas an iPhone is considered a status symbol.
      - rmbyrro 2y ago
seventyone 2y ago
> If Apple feels these rules are so just and fair and indispuitably correct, why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers? Because if would harm shareholder value. You don't need a more complicated explanation about the whole situation.
- ang_cire 2y ago
  If customers being informed about your business practices will result in harm to shareholder value, you've got a problem.
  - seventyone 2y ago
    But they will ride high in a pile of money until the curtain is drawn back. It's worth it to them
toasterlovin 2y ago
Anti-steering rules are completely normal in contracts between cooperating commercial entities. We sell on Amazon and we’re not allowed to steer Amazon’s customers off of Amazon. Amazon disables hyperlinks in the messaging system for communicating with customers. They rejected our PDF spec sheets for having links to our website. They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site. And, honestly, they’re completely justified, IMO. They’ve done all the work of furnishing a customer who is ready to purchase. Why should they then have to allow us to steer that customer off of their site to complete the sale? Of course, we’re still allowed to sell outside of Amazon, but we have to do all the legwork to get customers. And, being in the midst of an effort to do just that, it’s a huge amount of work, so I think they’re justified in not wanting us to poach their customers.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  I understand why Amazon won't allow you to link to your store directly but >They will de-list our products if they’re available for a lower price on another site. This sounds pretty shady
  - toasterlovin 2y ago
    We don’t have a right to sell on their site. If we want access to their customers and exposure for our products, they want to make sure they’re not being undercut on pricing (since they know customers will price shop).
    - Mordisquitos 2y ago
      If even after stopping you from linking to your own site Amazon still fears their customers will price shop by their own accord then: a) Amazon is implicitly admitting that their shopping platform is not so special: if customers could find cheaper suppliers of your product that would be enough for Amazon to be outcompeted. b) Amazon is indisputably engaging in anticompetitive practices by forbidding you from even selling at a cheaper price with the only justification of "we do not want price competition to even exist"
thefounder 2y ago
I think visa and Mastercard have the same behaviour even supported by the governments. You can’t add the visa fee to the checkout.
- BooneJS 2y ago
  And yet several places do. “Menu reflects cash prices” and “tuition payment via credit card will be subject to a 3.5% fee” are 2 I got this week.
- bhelkey 2y ago
  The EU regulates credit card fees caping them at 0.3% [1]. That is roughly a fifth of the fees charged in the US and roughly two orders of magnitude smaller than Apple app store fees. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-card-based-payments.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-...
  - thefounder 2y ago
    I think that’s a different fee. As a merchant accepting credit card or debit card payments is going to cost you the same 2-3%. At least that’s what Stripe or local payment processors charge
    - bhelkey 2y ago
      Stripe charges 1.5% + €0.25 ($0.27) in the EU to accept EEA cards [1]. Stripe charges 2.9% + $0.30 for processing domestic cards in the US [2]. The reason it charges 1.4% more for accepting US cards is the US card fees (interchange fees). These fees are complicated and roughly five times more than European card fees [3]. [1] https://stripe.com/en-fr/pricing https://stripe.com/en-fr/pricing [2] https://stripe.com/pricing https://stripe.com/pricing [3] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-card-processing-fees https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/small-business/credit-car...
- criddell 2y ago
  It varies state-to-state. https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/business/can-a-business-charge-for-using-credit-card/#surcharge https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/business/can-a-busines...
hulitu 2y ago
> why does it go to such measures to hide them from its consumers? Because the ripped off customers must keep paying. Why pay 30% more ?
grecy 2y ago
> indispuitable how wrong it is that Apple prevents developers from explaining these rules to their users Absolutely. This is the same as giving Candy to a child and saying "don't tell anyone" or your boss saying you can't tell coworkers how much you're being paid. The fact they want to keep it a secret shows something fishy is going on, and they know it.
rmbyrro 2y ago
Imagine if Steve Jobs was starting today, that famous super bowl advert from 1984 would allude to Apple, instead of IBM...
- ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
  ... Ouch. Not wrong.
- ChildOfChaos 2y ago
  It's the cycle of most companies that are successful. Start as the rebel/upstart being more bold, fighting the system, disrupting, until they become big enough to become the system. It's just different games, as a startup you can't behave like a big corporation, so you use that strength to your advantage, as you get huge, you can't act like a more reckless upstart.
ksec 2y ago
Apple without Steve Jobs is 1. Not very good at explaining itself. 2. Not entirely sure why things are done in a certain way, they their changes it and revert to Steve jobs's way, or they refused to change and did not understand why Steve decided on doing certain things in the first place. 3. Not a very coherent company. Still better than most other companies except may be Jensen in Nvidia.
biftek 2y ago
Is there any marketplace that allows a seller to advertise a cheaper alternative within their marketplace?
- sylens 2y ago
  Nobody is asking for the ability to put a label on their App Store listing that shows the price of the same software or subscription on the web. What they're doing is akin to dictating what the creator of a product could put in the manual or paperwork that comes in the box - you know, where you'll often find manufacturer's coupons and adverts for registering your product with their website.
  - biftek 2y ago
    Ok, guess I'm out of the loop then, I thought they already allowed that
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
standardUser 2y ago
Apple is happy to deliberately create social strife among kids by blocking it's most social app from cross-platform use, just to eek out a few more phone sales. That would be bad enough if they weren't the market leader. The fact that they are brings it to the level of grotesque cruelty. The point being, Apple is clearly willing to use every trick and scheme possible to maintain dominance and should be regulated as such. They are begging for it.
hot_gril 2y ago
You think this is indisputable, but I don't see why there needs to be a law against these anti-steering rules.

orwin 2y ago

Apple currently has three sets of business terms governing its relationship with app developers, including the App Store's steering rules. The Commission preliminarily finds that: - None of these business terms allow developers to freely steer their customers. For example, developers cannot provide pricing information within the app or communicate in any other way with their customers to promote offers available on alternative distribution channels. - Under most of the business terms available to app developers, Apple allows steering only through “link-outs”, i.e., app developers can include a link in their app that redirects the customer to a web page where the customer can conclude a contract. The link-out process is subject to several restrictions imposed by Apple that prevent app developers from communicating, promoting offers and concluding contracts through the distribution channel of their choice. - Whilst Apple can receive a fee for facilitating via the AppStore the initial acquisition of a new customer by developers, the fees charged by Apple go beyond what is strictly necessary for such remuneration. For example, Apple charges developers a fee for every purchase of digital goods or services a user makes within seven days after a link-out from the app. [edit] I will add one thing: right now, i'm rich enough that i wouldn't care about paying 30% less if it saves me the hassle of using a new payment processor, and i think this is the case for most people here, or even most people using Apple phones. But 10 years ago when i was scraping by, i had a phone that was given to me (not an iphone, but it could have been), and i would totally do everything i could to save 33% on anything (mostly food tbh). T=Not allowing link out and price discovery is not only anti-market, it's anti-poor.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> T=Not allowing link out and price discovery is not only anti-market, it's anti-poor. What shops list their own markup? If I go to a supermarket I don't see what the markup is the shop adds. I just see the price here vs the price there. I did that when I didn't have any money as well. It seems to work.
- rahkiin 2y ago
  I also do not see where else I can buy it, or prices of other shops for the same product. I also do not see products in shop A tell me I should go to shop B instead. Wasn’t the shop model what they copied?

penguinbasher 2y ago

Apple's app-store policies are anti-competitive. Even though they recently 'allowed' (How kind of them) publishers to create a link to an external form of payment, where the offer may be better, Apple still demands a significant slice of commission. I think many users would continue to use in-app purchases as it is a convenient way to pay, but the actions from Apple are poor and heavily restrictive. To save yourself some money, if subscribing, always go to the website, you'll get a better offer than within the app and more of your money will go to the publisher.

sem000 2y ago
[flagged]
- noitpmeder 2y ago
  Well that sounds like complete nonsense. As an Apple user id definitely take advantage of cheaper ways to purchase the exact same product. Furthermore - No one is forcing anyone to click the "get this cheaper here" link ... But I'd bet you'd be surprised how many Apple users would click it if it was there. The user and developer both win in that situation.
- tikkabhuna 2y ago
  That should be an informed decision. If users are happy to pay extra to Apple for convenience of use, then they should be aware of what is happening. If 95%, like you say, are happy to pay extra, then it should be no problem for Apple to allow developers to communicate the Apple fees.
  - madeofpalk 2y ago
    If users don't want to go to other websites, then developers should notice they're losing sales and be incentivised to offer a more convenient option! Maybe over time more integrated options could emergy that's as convenient, offers more features, and could be cheaper. Imagine if there was competition!
- 2y ago

EMIRELADERO 2y ago

Here's some context which a lot of people, including most news media, seem to have missed: The reason Apple is still playing games with the EC is that they're waiting on an EU Court's ruling[1] on whether Article 6 (7), the provision that mandates free of charge iOS APIs for all developers, is "constitutional" within the EU framework itself. Most people who call out the Core Technology Fee use that provision as one of their main arguments, and it's one of their strongest, because the "free of charge" language throws away the general idea that the law doesn't want to interfere with Apple's monetization strategies. Since Apple could very well have chosen to monetize certain local API access in the past, the fact that this provision put a stop to that effectively nullifies Apple's argument (to the courts) that the law could never have meant to actually control how they make money. [1] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BRD%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BT2023%2F1080%2FP&nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=T&num=T-1080%252F23&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&oqp=&td=%3BALL&avg=&lgrec=en&lg=&cid=3423184 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=T%3B1080%3B23%3BR...

graemep 2y ago
The problem is that apple is going to continue malicious compliance while the EU is trying to be reasonable: "the EU hopes ongoing dialogue will lead to compliance rather than sanctions."
- musictubes 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nomel 2y ago
    Could anyone help me understand why this was flagged dead? Is it incorrect somehow? This is a discussion around legality, so it makes sense to keep the discussion in that context. Apple being able to do something undesirable, in the perspective in the intent of the law, is either a "loophole" in the law, or the law doesn't actually accomplish what it was made to. Both are problems with the law. This isn't an Apple thing as much as a "anyone who will benefit in complying minimally will comply minimally". Apple today, whomever else tomorrow.

numair 2y ago

This is ridiculous. The EU has a complete axe to grind against Apple, for reasons that I believe border on corruption (if not, veer completely into it). Meanwhile, Meta has a near-monopoly on social networking in the Western world and is subject to a slap on the wrist at best. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, one of the best friends of the current EU Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, is currently on Meta's payroll. For this reason alone, the current EU Competition Commissioner should recuse herself from being involved in this role. There are other reasons, including direct conversations I have had with co-founders of Meta regarding EU commissioners, that cause me to have very little faith in these people to act fairly, or to do little other than carry out Meta's very long agenda to be able to ride on top of Apple's platform and deliver their own App Store with their own currency (remember Facebook Credits, anyone?) and completely replace iMessage etc for people who live within the mass-scale dystopia that is the Facebook-Instagram-WhatsApp Industrial Complex. Meta is a total monopoly that causes daily harm to society, and yet this is what the EU finds itself obsessed with. These people should be ashamed of themselves. And, they should release the records of every meeting and every communication they have with Meta and its various lobbyists, and the children/spouses of these people (because they love using the family connection to avoid scrutiny, as evidenced by their hiring of various congresspeople's children in roles that make no sense).

gield 2y ago
The EU fined Meta for 1.2 billion dollars last year, the largest GDPR fine ever [1]. And last month, the EU announced another investigation into Meta [2]. [1] https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-facebook-result-edpb-binding-decision_en https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fi... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2664 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
Sprotch 2y ago
I suggest you read the EU's press release. I don't understand how anyone could side with Apple on this. Link: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3433 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_...
2y ago

jstsch 2y ago

As a EU-citizen, I'm not happy with this legislation and enforcement. I choose Apple versus Android, because I want the safe and user friendly ecosystem Apple offers. Otherwise, it makes much more sense to go with Android. Those phones are much cheaper and are very much the same quality-wise (performance, screen, form factor...). The same goes with iOS on iPad. I'm very happy that my parents can use those devices versus a Windows machine (or even a MacBook) and know that they are pretty much safe from malware. Even now, I noticed that with the mandatory browser selection screen both my parents independently have moved on from built-in Safari to Chrome (independently), since that was the only browser name they know. And now they are in a much worse position privacy-wise than before. Which is certainly not in the spirit of the GDPR and DMA.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
How does other users' ability to install stuff outside of Apple's control impact your enjoyment of your devices?
- endisneigh 2y ago
  The general argument is that the changes end up being annoying. Simplest example would be 1st party apps only vs including 3rd party apps. Clearly there are implications around including 3rd party apps that would affect the operating system and thus user experience
  - alt227 2y ago
    I never understand this argument. iPhones can still come with Safari installed and used by default, no changes to anyones experience at all. But if I want to go to the app store, install a different browser engine, and set it as default, how does that affect any users that are just using the default device as supplied to them? There is no reason at all to hinder this choice. It does not affect 1st party apps, or how the device works by default. It just allows choice for those who want to explore it.
    - 2y ago

endisneigh 2y ago

Many years ago I would have said Apple would never leave the EU, but now I’d say it’s firmly in the “possible” territory. Maybe it’s a win for both parties of Apple leaves the EU, though I’m skeptical any homegrown EU product would have any traction unless they also force Google to divest Android. I’d love to know how much work it is for Apple to comply and deal with the EU regulatory environment. Interesting times.

chipweinberger 2y ago
Might not be homegrown. Anyone could come in. Would be a nice enticement too.
andersa 2y ago
Apple has invested more work into malicious non-compliance than it would have taken to simply do it right the first time.
hifromwork 2y ago
Why would apple leave the EU? It's a huge market, and I don't think there is a risk of their profit in the EU going negative because of some relatively small concessions. They can keep existing rules for the rest of the world and change them slightly for the EU. Unless they are afraid that other countries will demand the same if they budge?
- endisneigh 2y ago
  China is a huge market and Google left. Anything is possible.
  - user_7832 2y ago
    The EU is much closer to the US than China is, however.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Apple hasn't left China though, why would they leave Europe that has much less regulatory issues?

gargs 2y ago

Surely, Apple will respond by artificially hampering one or more of their products in the EU and hence take away even the slightest reason to upgrade hardware in the name of Apple Intelligence. Customers need a company that acts and reasons like an adult.

aikinai 2y ago
You’re obviously insinuating that they are delaying features in the EU just to be petty, but the ostensible reason is plenty compelling on its own. The EU regulations will require them to do insane amounts of custom work building a public API for Apple Intelligence. Imagine how hard it will be to make that interface secure, private, not terrible for users. The other features like mirroring are much simpler, but still, is it worth making a public interface and taking the security and privacy risks just to offer the feature in the EU? Every new feature in the EU is now a massive liability, so of course they’re going to be more cautious what they release.
- threeseed 2y ago
  The idea that any third party app could (a) record my screen 24/7 in the background or (b) have full access to all of the data on my phone would be beyond unacceptable. Everyone rightly criticised Microsoft for providing such a capability and they would do the same with Apple as well. EU would be insane to push Apple on this.
  - ginko 2y ago
    >The idea that any third party app could (a) record my screen 24/7 in the background or (b) have full access to all of the data on my phone would be beyond unacceptable. Such an app would be breaking GDPR.
    - alt227 2y ago
      > Such an app would be breaking GDPR. Obviously not https://www.rewind.ai/ https://www.rewind.ai/ GDPR has no bearing on what apps can and cant do, as long as they ask you permission for their use of personal data first.

sccxy 2y ago

I guess reasonable fine for this breach is 30% of revenue in EU just like in the app store.

moffkalast 2y ago
Maybe they ought to fine Apple 50 cents per installed app from their App Store, since apparently they consider that perfectly fine and reasonable.
NayamAmarshe 2y ago
Don't forget the $99 per app.
- m3kw9 2y ago
  wrong, its 99 per developer
- treeFall 2y ago
  Even if you don't want an app, you have to pay $99 for the privilege of a "Login with Apple" button on your website.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Or even 'Pay with Apple Pay' on your website.
  - tzs 2y ago
    So?
The_Colonel 2y ago
The fine is up to 10% of global revenue, but that's not far from the 30% of revenue from EU.
xvector 2y ago
Maybe we should just fine any company 100% of revenue if they breach a law, since that's just as arbitrary of a number and makes our region more money.

classified 2y ago

So when do we address the elephant in the room and designate Apple a Criminal Enterprise™?

epolanski 2y ago

Apple keeps half assing its compliance in EU, thinking their malicious compliance will fly. They want to learn it won't work through their wallets.

llm_nerd 2y ago
It's fairly standard corporate behaviour, and ultimately it pays off handsomely for Apple. They slow walked implementing a solution to prior censure, and then provided a solution that is laughable, but it starts the whole process again. Now Apple has a year to get some sort of real solution in. During the intervening periods they will have made billions they wouldn't have if they actually implemented a good faith, good intentions response the first time around.
- blackoil 2y ago
  Assuming EU won't slap a $30B fine. this approach didn't work very well for MS.

_xnmw 2y ago

While I think Apple's rules are ridiculous, it is pretty standard in the industry. AirBnB doesn't allow hosts to accept cash or arrange alternative payment. Amazon doesn't allow suppliers to offer direct sales to potential customers. Even Visa and Mastercard officially don't allow merchants to offer discounts for cash transactions (although many do anyway). Etc, etc. I think this should be a more general rule, no "platform" or "aggregator" should be allowed to prevent the free communication of users of their platform from arranging their deal elsewhere. Just because they met on the platform doesn't give the right to the platform to strong-arm their users into using them. The platform must compete with alternative payment methods on its own merits, such as convenience, security, etc., not by forcing people to use them just because they happen to be the matchmaker. Because this policy cements monopolies and rewards the largest incumbents.

xandrius 2y ago
Gotta start somewhere, going for the Trillion dollar behemoth is a good first step, in my opinion. And let's not forget that this standard is a de facto standard, not a regulatory one. Just because things have been done in this way, it doesn't mean they should remain like this forever. The EU is one of the few parties which can actually bring some change.
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  Then it should do so broadly and inclusive of actual technical expertise. It’s nitpicking fluff because Epic and Spotify are mad, and not addressing root causes. It’s easy (and often deserved) to dunk on the trillion-dollar corporation. And regulation is good, actually. But the DMA isn’t good regulation.
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    I’m not sure how they could have gone broader. The EU is saying that Apple payments offering need to compete on level playing field with other payment options. I don’t really see what being “inclusive of technical expertise” would bring to the table, beyond what’s already there.

mirzap 2y ago

The EU is too soft with Apple. Apple has consistently shown harmful intentions towards users, and it needs to change. They have had numerous opportunities to change but have refused to do so. I'm a big fan of Apple products, but I cannot accept the fact that I cannot install apps on my device from any source I want. Even if I develop my own app, I cannot install it on my iPhone. Why is the iPhone different from the Mac? It should be just as easy to install an app on the iPhone, simply download it and you're done, or drag and drop it from the desktop. I hope the EU sets a precedent once and for all with a maximum fine (10% of global revenue).

xandrius 2y ago
To be fair, if you develop the app yourself you can install it on your iPhone without any problem, you connect your phone and install it through Xcode.
- MilaM 2y ago
  True, but you have to rebuild the app every six or seven days, because it stops working. Unless you shell out for the paid developer account I think. Then your apps won't expire. My guess is that Apple thinks this route could be used to circumvent the App Store.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Then your apps won't expire. Correction: then your apps will last a year before they expire. You'll still need to reinstall yearly.
- _lvbh 2y ago
  That still requires a MacBook. It makes it almost impossible for open source developers to make applications for IOS
  - xandrius 2y ago
    Open source != owning a mac I agree that the hardware requirement is bullshit and mostly unnecessary.

_xnmw 2y ago

Apple's App Store policy is unbelievably ridiculously hubristic. Imagine if Google/Microsoft charged you 30% of your entire business just because you ran it on top of Excel/Sheets and Gmail/Outlook. Or if Adobe took a 30% royalty from all artists creative works. It's madness, plain and simple. Developers already pay an annual fee to publish to the App Store, and consumers pay massive dollar to buy their iDevices. And yet they still have the nerve to demand 30% of entire business revenue, and charge a tax even when conducted outside of the App Store (so-called Core Technology Fee)? Even most governments in the world don't tax out-of-jurisdiction income.

dialup_sounds 2y ago
> Imagine Google's Play Store and Microsoft's Xbox charge the same as Apple's App Store. Microsoft's Windows Store charges less, but nobody uses it store anyway.
- yokoprime 2y ago
  Because side-loading is a thing that works well on Windows.
  - alt227 2y ago
    Not only works well, but is the default accepted way of installing applications.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    That's true, but on the other hand you have Steam, et al. that are popular in spite of that. Or the Mac App Store on macOS.
lolinder 2y ago
Imagine if Steam took 30% of all sales on their platform! Or if Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft charged developers 30% for online app sales! (Spoiler: they all do). There are lots of things worth criticizing about Apple's model, but I'll never understand the fixation on the 30% rule. They provide a distribution platform that is every bit as robust and has a much larger reach than the video game consoles, and if they want to charge the same prices as the consoles I don't see why that's the hill to die on when there are so many other things that are more obviously rotten.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

m3kw9 2y ago

Apple's services in the app store(in app purchase system, refunds, API's, app store distribution infrastructure) is indisputly useful and deserved to be paid, however, it could be time to relax the fee circumventing rules since they are so big and has a target on their backs now.

kingsleyopara 2y ago

I don't understand why so many people think that if Apple didn't take a percentage cut of sales, prices would go down. Products are typically priced at what customers are willing to pay, which likely wouldn't change. The developer would simply earn more. The only real benefit to customers might be the existence of some apps with extremely thin margins that wouldn't be viable otherwise. As a developer, I naturally approve this though.

gostsamo 2y ago
Because there are price sensitive users and many services would prefer to share those 30% with them instead of losing the business. Because even if the developer gets the money, they will invest them in their product instead of them going to Apple. Because even if they don't invest them, more money on the market will incentivize more developers who will create competition. Because even nothing changes, this means more money around the world instead of being concentrated in the Apple shareholders who will use them to create even more locked gardens.
- kingsleyopara 2y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. If a product is already priced optimally, lowering the price to capture price-sensitive users would reduce overall revenue, right? Profitable developers set prices based on what the market will bear, not the cost structure. Also, I'm not sure all developers would reinvest additional earnings into their products rather than just increase profit margins or divert funds elsewhere. I agree on the economic redistribution point though.
  - gostsamo 2y ago
    The current optimal price is set with the extra cost of Apple rentiering included on the production side. Minus that cost, the developer might find another optimum.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
    > I'm not sure all developers would reinvest additional earnings into their products rather than just increase profit margins or divert funds elsewhere A mega corporation like Apple is much less likely to do this than a smaller company, though. Apple's quarterly dividend is literally the company communicating that they make so much money they can't think of anything better to do with it than just giving it away to the investors.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] Some more discussion on the official commission release: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40773806

retskrad 2y ago

What makes Apple such a unique company beloved by billions of people and such a valuable company for investors is because there’s no other company like Apple. It’s the only company that has managed to be a successful software AND hardware company, it has 3 extremely popular operating systems (iOS, ipadOS, MacOS) and the only company that is vertically integrated from top down. Wait it gets better. There are no laws in the books that says what Apple is doing is illegal. Apple’s culture might be Steve Jobs’ greatest product.

blackoil 2y ago
> There are no laws in the books that says what Apple is doing is illegal. Ummm. The whole discussion is that allegedly Apple is not compliant with DMA.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Rohansi 2y ago
I wouldn't consider iPadOS different from iOS. They realistically share 99% or more of their code with each other and just lock down features because of hardware/form factor differences. You also left out watchOS which is based on iOS.
talldayo 2y ago
Commenting here for posterity when Apple loses their antitrust case. Smile! ♫ ♪ ♬ You're on candid camera~ ♪ ♬ ♫

oblio 2y ago

That was quick.

ang_cire 2y ago

I'm excited to see where this goes. Whether you agree or disagree with Apple, them losing (or even just lessening) their monopoly status would make room for new and upcoming businesses. New apps, new app stores, etc etc. Disruption may not always turn out better in the end, but if the status quo is not good, it's often worth the risk. "Move fast and break stuff" is very divisive, because of course 'stuff' could include optimal stuff, people, the environment, etc. "Move fast and break monopolies" on the other hand, should, as a forum for startup aspirants, be pretty easy to agree on.

topherPedersen 2y ago

I wish the United States would follow the EU on this. It's insane that 1 company has near complete control over what software can and cannot be published, and they get to take a tax on all software sold. Absolutely insane. Obviously there's web, Android, Windows, Linux, gaming consoles, and smart tvs, so there are some work-arounds to avoid the evil empire, but most consumers here in the United States use iPhones and probably have no idea that Apple is taxing all of the app developers and exercising complete editorial control over all software published for the iPhone. Do you think consumers know that Apple literally reviews all software companies products and then decide whether they will allow that company or product to exist? Even worse, its not even high level executives making these decisions, it's $20 an hour employees on their App Review Board making these decisions to kill entire companies.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
multimoon 2y ago
Could you just not buy their products then? While there are more consumer friendly ways to do it sure, I don’t see anything illegal or wrong here. You’re buying their hardware, with the software licensing understanding that comes with it - if you don’t like the terms you don’t buy the hardware. There isn’t a moral calculus that is or needs to be involved here, it’s a simple flat “don’t buy their product if you don’t like it”. If enough people cared and did so, they’d change very quickly. Apple isn’t a monopoly, there are plenty of alternatives that might suit your needs better.
- ZoomerCretin 2y ago
  Like a lot of anti-monopoly laws, the harmed party is not the consumer but other businesses. No, you cannot simply refuse to give Apple their 30% (unless you are yourself big enough to negotiate an exemption; including waiving a 30% fee of your own for Apple's apps on your platforms) if you want access to their huge and very lucrative market. Microsoft lost an anti-monopoly case because they bundled a free browser with Windows. Forcing your competitors to pay 30% and thus have higher costs and prices than your own competing services is a much more straightforward violation.

indiantinker 2y ago

Wow! What if Apple decided to stop operating in EU altogether ?

xvector 2y ago
The EU would rapidly collapse if US big tech pulled out. It actively prevents the development of a flourishing tech industry.
- postalrat 2y ago
  Nah, there would just be more Androids phones sold.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Google's Android?

nuker 2y ago

What EU is doing is wrong. There are costs in running App Store, and asking for it to be fee free does not make sense. Allowing 3rd party Stores will wide open mass public to scams, data leaks and worse. Developers are getting a very good deal for their small fee by SW industry metrics. Their apps gets displayed and sold by Apple, all things covered, no chargebacks, no running costs. I feel threatened as a user by what EU is doing. Next thing to expect - many apps will require(!) always on location...