They're signalling that other methods or payment are fine, but they're entitled to that commission of 30% (- processing fees i guess)
If people thought the lawsuits were about the commission they're wrong, they were about forcing Apple's method of payment, but even after you get through that they still feel they are entitled to the commission.
You might have your opinions about whether thats right or wrong, but Apple's approach was to look as both as 2 different things whereas everyone seemed to see them as the same. And thats what they took advantage of.
They are as much entitled to that commission as the Mafia is entitled to theirs.
It's a ridiculous demand. It is a pretty American way of thinking that the courts order is about the payment system rather than because of the commission when clearly, if the commission weren't there companies would not be looking for alternative payment systems to begin with. It's ignoring the spirit of the ruling. Prediction: this won't end well for Apple and it will cost them plenty of goodwill in NL.
They kinda are entitled - you are build for their OS, using their APIs and SDKs, targeting their customers.
All that needs to be funded somehow plus as I always say - nobody has forced engineers to build iOS apps.
An example: what if US engineers dislike the privacy laws of the EU and start asking to get them removed because you know their app wants to track and stalk ppl without their knowledge.
Maybe not the best example but I hope you get the point
> you are build for their OS, using their APIs and SDKs
Already paid by the user. You are building for the user. Do you pay the house builder for the poster you nail in your wall?
I only get that argument for the actual store, since there is a curation service being provided. But the OS? No way. If anything, apps in an OS ecosystem give more value to the OS; the OS owner should be paying for that ecosystem, not demanding payment.
Right! So as soon as I’ve bought one game built with Unreal Engine, I’ve paid for the engine and should get a discount on all other games which use it.
I’m the customer. I can decide when the company is fairly compensated.
Well, you probably would pay the house builder for the poster you nail in your wall if the house builder stored and delivered the poster that was built with tools the house builder provided. Your analogy does not apply.
For your second point, apps vary in value and I'm sure that there are times when Apple pays somebody to put an app on their store.
Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5:
(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;
And Article 6:
(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;
(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.
None of these stop the % commission they merely say it has to be applied fairy and equally. The fees aren't a gatekeep since everyone has the same treatment and no one is being 'gatekept'
The law will require to allow third-party app stores. If Apple decides to impose 27% tax on everything sold in the third-party app store then I'm sure other EU competition laws will kick in. As Apple will be explicitly using their power to make direct competition non-viable.
Also, EU does not need to spell everything explicitly. The law will give the EU Commission a lot of executive power to respond to this type of shenanigans from gatekeepers.
Article 7, compliance with obligations for gatekeepers, paragraph 2:
Where the Commission finds that the measures that the gatekeeper intends to implement pursuant to paragraph 1, or has implemented, do not ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in Article 6, it may by decision specify the measures that the gatekeeper concerned shall implement. (...)
Article 10, updating obligations for gatekeepers, paragraph 1:
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 34 to update the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6 where, based on a market investigation pursuant to Article 17, it has identified the need for new obligations addressing practices that limit the contestability of core platform services or are unfair in the same way as the practices addressed by the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6.
None of that gets around the fact that the 27% can be defined as the licence fee for intellectual property. There’s no principle of capitalism that allows someone else to compete with you on the sale of your own goods.
EU already forced visa and mastercard to lower their fees, this is exactly the same kind of scenario. EU doesn't tolerate giant companies making themselves into a bottleneck so they can extract more money from the economy.
A good start for interpreting EU law is to let go of the US literal view of the law and to start looking at the intent of the law. That's a much better predictor for how EU courts will rule.
Ah, the appeal to authority. To me your just another anonymous commenter on HN. Really, I couldn't care less, every lawsuit has lawyers on both sides and half of them will lose their case, but will maintain that their customer was right all along and that they will now appeal and then when they run out of appeals they quietly slink off into the dark with their money.
EU anti-competitive law has been tested in court time and again by the big telcos and as a rule they have lost every time they tried to get smart with words.
Whilst my appeal may be to authority yours is based on what you feel is right and wrong and that isn't the same as how the law works. In fact it's built to work against what a consumer feels to what that is fair. You might not like it but fair is tilted towards the large company not the consumer in the EU, especially when it comes to a company making profit.
The big telcos btw always win, but always makes the consumer happy. Have looked at Orange do this countless times.
Why don't you tell me about how happy you feel the EU is green, and then i'll tell you how happy European companies are 'green' now includes natural gas. Both sides win I suppose.
I was waiting for this, you have basically gone for an ad hominem, which is how basically you fail to win an argument.
I am assuming from the 'where you sit is where you stand' principle that you are from the Netherlands. I can understand how it can be seen as a bit of a defeat this ruling by Apple and their reaction; the expectations were more of a win. Maybe a 3% discount off 30% is a minor improvement.
Focus on the facts and not the person. Again this is why you are letting your opinion of Apple be dictated by your feelings, and this is why you can't win against them with this mindset.
Btw for someone in my profession to get this is a great thing so I will take the compliment. It is seen as the other person breaking not to have a good argument ;-)
> They kinda are entitled - you are build for their OS, using their APIs and SDKs, targeting their customers.
So do you also think that Microsoft is entitled to 30% of every developer's income if they want to release an app for the Windows platform? After all they're building for their OS, using their APIs and SDKs and targeting their customers.
> you are build for their OS, using their APIs and SDKs, targeting their customers.
Which takes us right back to "Imagine if in the past Apple would have had to pay 30% of their gross to Microsoft in order to be allowed to run their software on Windows."
I'm apple's customer, and I'm these apps' customer. None of them own me. Apple's not doing any meaningful referring, it should be possible to opt out of any referring they do, and building for an OS should not cost these fees.
You choose to do business with Apple, knowing the terms of the deal. At a certain point that’s determinative. Apple doesn’t have a majority user base in the US. Google is ready and waiting for defectors.
This is excellent news. You see, I work in networks. I (helped) write the driver that is used on the carrier side of 4G networks, and it's open source, so, like Apple, I retain the copyright. A driver that you have undoubtedly used to order pizza. My code is the "platform" you used to pay that pizza! I am entitled to compensation, and apparently 30% ... wow. Great news!
I'll have 30% of everything you ever paid over your phone now.
Remember, you CHOSE to pay using "my" infrastructure, so it's only fair that I be compensated for that.
Or is your point that these rules only apply to massive US corporations?
Oh I got the point alright: a large US entity (who by hte way is an expert at dodging taxes themselves) believes that they can ignore a court ruling by playing word games and are entitled to a 30% tax on all of the income peripherally generated if their eco-system was touched at some point in time. It's ridiculous.
As for that privacy law: that pertains to EU data subjects. So it isn't 'not the best example' it is a terrible example, especially given that the ruling here is very similar in nature.
>They kinda are entitled - you are build for their OS, using their APIs and SDKs, targeting their customers.
The fix is super obvious, Apple selling shit in my country uses my country population and wealth, so 30% tax on each sell, NOT on profits, We could use the Apple Tax against Apple, if they don't like it they are not forced to sell the products in my country.
Just using the tax system against big tech would be a start. It’s ludicrous how little tax gets paid once the stupid dodges have been played. Fix those holes and have them pay what the small players pay. That alone would satisfy me.
If people thought the lawsuits were about the commission they're wrong, they were about forcing Apple's method of payment, but even after you get through that they still feel they are entitled to the commission.
You might have your opinions about whether thats right or wrong, but Apple's approach was to look as both as 2 different things whereas everyone seemed to see them as the same. And thats what they took advantage of.