7 ms·

Sigh, not that I expected anything else from Apple at this point but of course they only change the rules for the US.

ocdtrekkie 1y ago
Presumably they are planning to appeal so want to minimize impacted apps when they hope to make everyone undo all the changes later. If it sticks it is hard not to imagine it becoming global, since the app store tax issue has become a topic of concern in like a dozen countries now.
- fundatus 1y ago
  Yeah, I was hoping Apple would read the room and simply change the rules globally, but I guess they will be trying to squeeze us customers for as long as they can.
  - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
    The entire thing they got contempt of court for was trying to find a way to continue to squeeze customers as long as they can. This is the Big Tech playbook. Apple and Google know what they're doing isn't legal. But they make so much doing it, that it's worth the lawyer fees to delay and delay and appeal and appeal as long as possible to keep the money train flowing. Historically the fine has never been as big as the profit, so even if they eventually get in trouble for it, it makes sense for them to profit in the short term.
- stingraycharles 1y ago
  This is exactly it. They’re acting as if it’s something that’s going to be reversed, and are going to appeal. If they also apply the same rules to other countries, it would hurt their case that this court order is unjust.
  - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
    They can just get a presidential pardon for now and all future acts. Companies are people. Unkillable people. Unjailable people. They don't sleep. They have a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, a thousand legs, thousand brains. They get better financing, they can walk away from their financing. I can send unlimited money to politicians. They can exist in a thousand places, countries, legal systems at once.
    - stingraycharles 1y ago
      I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, unless it’s some generic anti-corporate stuff.
klabb3 1y ago
Apple was doing malicious compliance all along. It’s not surprising. But this is extremely good news, because it dampens FUD and narratives such as ”the EU is only going after American companies with frivolous rules”. If you get punished this hard for anti-trust, in the US, you are so out of line it’s not even funny. So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest. In either case, this thing will die with a whimper, not a bang. Apple will have to concede to EU and it would not surprise me if other large markets will demand the same. So the stage is changing. Apple could have flown under the radar and made concessions with terms they could dictate, letting them simplify their offerings across the world without attracting regulators and mega-lawsuits (and hear me out - maybe focus on products and innovation instead). Now, they fight against multiple jurisdictions at once, which all have different requirements (obviously, since they are different bodies). Even if they fold now, by reducing the tax and making more lenient rules, they’re too late. They already have regulators and judges dictating for them what to do, so their agency is permanently limited. People forget that in the EU, the ”gatekeeper status” wasn’t just ”go after Apple and Google”. It was the App Store specifically. For instance, Gmail was evaluated but not included. TLDR Apple has to sleep in a bed that they shat in themselves. They were universally popular and could get away with lots of questionable behavior, but instead angered everyone and are rightfully getting curfewed.
- deeThrow94 1y ago
  > So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest. I'm confused a) who is taking the concept of free markets seriously, especially in this context where markets (and competition) are arbitrarily defined and owned by corporations and and b) who would view self-interested laws as either surprising or bad? Of course laws are in self interest. Why on else else would you pass a law?
  - smallmancontrov 1y ago
    This is HN, the Church of the Free Market is well represented. If you haven't yet seen someone give the "free markets create competition" speech on Monday and the "my company aims to capture this space and then entrench a monopoly with economies of scale / network effects / platform effects / two sided markets / last mile dynamics" pitch on Tuesday, just hang around HN a bit more. You won't have to wait long.
T3RMINATED 1y ago
[dead]
jjice 1y ago
It seems pretty standard for tech companies. They did the same thing with EU only side-loading (not even sure if that's the right term for how restricted it is). They'll only make changes where they need to, whether it's the EU or the US, or even the UK (let's see how that encryption stuff turns out). As a business, I understand why they would - more revenue. At least there's some progress and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU follows suit.
- rendaw 1y ago
  It makes comparison easier though. If they did it everywhere, they could make claims about how cheaper or better it'd be for everyone if they didn't have to do it, but having both systems in place at once means people can just look across the lake and see.
- nottorp 1y ago
  > EU only side-loading There is no side loading on iOS, even for the EU. Not by my definition of side loading.
burnte 1y ago
Yep, and the EU wants the same thing so all Apple is really doing is holding on for a little longer to the old rules until the EU will make them do the exact same thing. Apple could have been less maliciously compliant and wouldn't have as much resistance from courts, but it was clearly a retaliatory tactic from minute 1.
behnamoh 1y ago
One word: greed. Apple as the company we used to know is long dead. I still buy MacBooks and iPhones but only because some remnant of the past still exists in them. The new company came up with Vision Pro, screwing Spotify over app commissions, screwing game developers users love (Epic), non-upgradeable devices, extremely difficult repairability, etc.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  > screwing Spotify over app commissions Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it > Epic Epic is another example of a shady company who doesn't want to give a cut from its micro transactions from users (users who are brought to them by Apple's innovation) > difficult repairability iPhone repairability score is 2-3 points higher than Pixel's according to iFixit. Only HMD beats iPhone.
  - whywhywhywhy 1y ago
    >Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it How? They pay the exact same percentage as Steam does to it's creators, 70%.
    - redwall_hp 1y ago
      Music royalties are also set by a panel of judges (Copyright Royalty Board). Spotify is not legally able to "screw" anyone. Their pro rata model pays as much or more than the legal requirement. The economics of radio and internet streaming, especially in a world with a democratic explosion of access to recording technology, simply aren't conducive to recording being lucrative. Record labels are in the business of screwing musicians, though.
      - throwaway290 1y ago
        1) Using legally required minimum as floor is malicious, this is US we're talking about 2) CRB's ruling is very new and you want us to forget how Spotify was screwing everybody over all preceding years 3) the rates from CRB are based on total revenue of the streaming service which leaves a LOT up for manipulation if the company wants to pay less. Read what real bands and musicians say about how much they get paid from Spotify and others
saurik 1y ago
> ...except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not... This, honestly, doesn't seem to be in line with the injunction if it still applies to apps published by developers from the United States?
onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago
Why would you expect Apple to ever "do the right thing?" They exist to seek profits. If this was a losing strategy for them, they would've dropped it long ago without the ruling. Other countries should implement similar laws, not hope that Apple does the right thing. Hope is a bad strategy.

Presumably they are planning to appeal so want to minimize impacted apps when they hope to make everyone undo all the changes later. If it sticks it is hard not to imagine it becoming global, since the app store tax issue has become a topic of concern in like a dozen countries now.

fundatus 1y ago
Yeah, I was hoping Apple would read the room and simply change the rules globally, but I guess they will be trying to squeeze us customers for as long as they can.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  The entire thing they got contempt of court for was trying to find a way to continue to squeeze customers as long as they can. This is the Big Tech playbook. Apple and Google know what they're doing isn't legal. But they make so much doing it, that it's worth the lawyer fees to delay and delay and appeal and appeal as long as possible to keep the money train flowing. Historically the fine has never been as big as the profit, so even if they eventually get in trouble for it, it makes sense for them to profit in the short term.
stingraycharles 1y ago
This is exactly it. They’re acting as if it’s something that’s going to be reversed, and are going to appeal. If they also apply the same rules to other countries, it would hurt their case that this court order is unjust.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  They can just get a presidential pardon for now and all future acts. Companies are people. Unkillable people. Unjailable people. They don't sleep. They have a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, a thousand legs, thousand brains. They get better financing, they can walk away from their financing. I can send unlimited money to politicians. They can exist in a thousand places, countries, legal systems at once.
  - stingraycharles 1y ago
    I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, unless it’s some generic anti-corporate stuff.

klabb3 1y ago

Apple was doing malicious compliance all along. It’s not surprising. But this is extremely good news, because it dampens FUD and narratives such as ”the EU is only going after American companies with frivolous rules”. If you get punished this hard for anti-trust, in the US, you are so out of line it’s not even funny. So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest. In either case, this thing will die with a whimper, not a bang. Apple will have to concede to EU and it would not surprise me if other large markets will demand the same. So the stage is changing. Apple could have flown under the radar and made concessions with terms they could dictate, letting them simplify their offerings across the world without attracting regulators and mega-lawsuits (and hear me out - maybe focus on products and innovation instead). Now, they fight against multiple jurisdictions at once, which all have different requirements (obviously, since they are different bodies). Even if they fold now, by reducing the tax and making more lenient rules, they’re too late. They already have regulators and judges dictating for them what to do, so their agency is permanently limited. People forget that in the EU, the ”gatekeeper status” wasn’t just ”go after Apple and Google”. It was the App Store specifically. For instance, Gmail was evaluated but not included. TLDR Apple has to sleep in a bed that they shat in themselves. They were universally popular and could get away with lots of questionable behavior, but instead angered everyone and are rightfully getting curfewed.

deeThrow94 1y ago
> So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest. I'm confused a) who is taking the concept of free markets seriously, especially in this context where markets (and competition) are arbitrarily defined and owned by corporations and and b) who would view self-interested laws as either surprising or bad? Of course laws are in self interest. Why on else else would you pass a law?
- smallmancontrov 1y ago
  This is HN, the Church of the Free Market is well represented. If you haven't yet seen someone give the "free markets create competition" speech on Monday and the "my company aims to capture this space and then entrench a monopoly with economies of scale / network effects / platform effects / two sided markets / last mile dynamics" pitch on Tuesday, just hang around HN a bit more. You won't have to wait long.

T3RMINATED 1y ago

[dead]

jjice 1y ago

It seems pretty standard for tech companies. They did the same thing with EU only side-loading (not even sure if that's the right term for how restricted it is). They'll only make changes where they need to, whether it's the EU or the US, or even the UK (let's see how that encryption stuff turns out). As a business, I understand why they would - more revenue. At least there's some progress and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU follows suit.

rendaw 1y ago
It makes comparison easier though. If they did it everywhere, they could make claims about how cheaper or better it'd be for everyone if they didn't have to do it, but having both systems in place at once means people can just look across the lake and see.
nottorp 1y ago
> EU only side-loading There is no side loading on iOS, even for the EU. Not by my definition of side loading.

burnte 1y ago

Yep, and the EU wants the same thing so all Apple is really doing is holding on for a little longer to the old rules until the EU will make them do the exact same thing. Apple could have been less maliciously compliant and wouldn't have as much resistance from courts, but it was clearly a retaliatory tactic from minute 1.

behnamoh 1y ago

One word: greed. Apple as the company we used to know is long dead. I still buy MacBooks and iPhones but only because some remnant of the past still exists in them. The new company came up with Vision Pro, screwing Spotify over app commissions, screwing game developers users love (Epic), non-upgradeable devices, extremely difficult repairability, etc.

throwaway290 1y ago
> screwing Spotify over app commissions Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it > Epic Epic is another example of a shady company who doesn't want to give a cut from its micro transactions from users (users who are brought to them by Apple's innovation) > difficult repairability iPhone repairability score is 2-3 points higher than Pixel's according to iFixit. Only HMD beats iPhone.
- whywhywhywhy 1y ago
  >Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it How? They pay the exact same percentage as Steam does to it's creators, 70%.
  - redwall_hp 1y ago
    Music royalties are also set by a panel of judges (Copyright Royalty Board). Spotify is not legally able to "screw" anyone. Their pro rata model pays as much or more than the legal requirement. The economics of radio and internet streaming, especially in a world with a democratic explosion of access to recording technology, simply aren't conducive to recording being lucrative. Record labels are in the business of screwing musicians, though.
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      1) Using legally required minimum as floor is malicious, this is US we're talking about 2) CRB's ruling is very new and you want us to forget how Spotify was screwing everybody over all preceding years 3) the rates from CRB are based on total revenue of the streaming service which leaves a LOT up for manipulation if the company wants to pay less. Read what real bands and musicians say about how much they get paid from Spotify and others

saurik 1y ago

> ...except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not... This, honestly, doesn't seem to be in line with the injunction if it still applies to apps published by developers from the United States?

onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago

Why would you expect Apple to ever "do the right thing?" They exist to seek profits. If this was a losing strategy for them, they would've dropped it long ago without the ruling. Other countries should implement similar laws, not hope that Apple does the right thing. Hope is a bad strategy.