Apple makes it clear it will get its app commission regardless of payment method

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.
    And they didn't even imply that Apple couldn't continue to collect the commission. If anything, they tacitly acknowledged that Apple could do so.

    Apple's commission just isn't discussed - in either the ACM's summary of its decision or the provisional-relief judge's ruling on the ACM's order. That ruling discusses the issues at some length and doesn't refer to Apple charging a commission. It, e.g., goes through the ways in which Apple's abuse of its dominant position harm both developers and consumers but in doing so doesn't say anything about developers having to pay Apple a commission or consumers facing higher prices as a result. Rather, it specifies numerous other ways in which the anti-steering policy and the lack of choice in payment processing (for IAP) harms developers and consumers.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 48
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.
    It counts for more than 'squat' but I agree that it is impossible to know for sure how things will go until the relevant departments have reviewed things. 

    Yeh, ask Djokovic about rules and regulations.   Sometimes it depends on what day it is and who you ask.
  • Reply 23 of 48
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    How does it fly against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level? The decision (as approved) was that Apple had to allow alternate payment processing for IAP and couldn't maintain its anti-steering policy. It didn't have anything to do with Apple's commission. Those are quite different things. The summary of the decision and the court's review of the decision don't in any way suggest that Apple can't continue to collect its commission. They don't, e.g., even mention the commission when they detail the ways in which the policies at issue affect developers and consumers.

    Perhaps the ACM will decide further that Apple can't collect its commission in this context. (That would, I hope, lead to some complaints from U.S. trade representatives on Apple's behalf and pursuant to, e.g., the WIPO Copyright Treaty.) But as the order exists (and as affirmed by the provisional-relief judge), Apple's commission isn't implicated.
    edited January 17 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 48
    robabarobaba Posts: 226member
    cropr said:
    Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 
    Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple
    I think that number is probably a little misleading. For example I have an app for my bank on my phone. My bank makes nothing off the app, it is free and has on IAP but while they don't make a profit off of the app they are still a profitable entity. I personally have a host of apps like this on my phone. They are free apps with no IAP but they are linked to something else that is profitable (Garmin, Slack, Philips Hue, ecobee, United Airlines, Avis, various hotels, USA Triathlon, local rail). So yeah a ton of apps don't make a profit or even generate revenue in app but it doesn't mean the developer doesn't make money. 
    In you’re scenario The Bank is not the developer of the App in question, but the owner.  They do not have a legion of code-monkeys pounding away at their keyboards.  Instead they use 3rd party vendors that develop and maintain the code.  Guarantee you that 3rd party got/gets paid.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 48
    avon b7 said:
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.
    It counts for more than 'squat' but I agree that it is impossible to know for sure how things will go until the relevant departments have reviewed things. 

    Yeh, ask Djokovic about rules and regulations.   Sometimes it depends on what day it is and who you ask.
    Djokovic obviously thought his number one status gave him a privileged position. It didn’t and it shouldn’t.
    williamlondondope_ahminemike1watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 48
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.
    It counts for more than 'squat' but I agree that it is impossible to know for sure how things will go until the relevant departments have reviewed things. 

    Yeh, ask Djokovic about rules and regulations.   Sometimes it depends on what day it is and who you ask.
    Djokovic obviously thought his number one status gave him a privileged position. It didn’t and it shouldn’t.

    Yeh -- he believed Australia when they said:  "Come on in!"
    Right now that looks more like foolish than privileged -- because once he was already there Morrison pulled some political showmanship and grandstanding.   He knew Djokovic was coming.  Everybody did.  But Morrison waited till he was in the country before showing everybody how tough and strong he is by throwing him into detention.

    Will anybody trust the Aussies again?
    muthuk_vanalingamchadbag
  • Reply 27 of 48
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,067member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 
    Of course merchants control their own stores. You’re confusing control with regulation, but they’re not mutually exclusive. You can control your store, and also be regulated with things you cannot control. 
    Regulation is control. You control your store in line with regulations. 
    Being regulated has no bearing on what you claimed - that “nobody controls their own stores”. Yes, they do. It so happens they themselves are also regulated (everybody has a boss, so to speak), but that doesn’t somehow mean they do not control the aspects of their store within their ability to control. What on earth?

    avon b7 said:
    rob53 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 
    Your control is limited to what regulations allow for. You don't have a free ride to do whatever you want. 
    Oh you just moved the goalposts. That goes without saying, which is why nobody claimed merchants have a free ride to “do whatever they want”. You’re making a false dichotomy - no control, or whatever they want. IRL: merchants are free to control their stores, and they are also regulated. It’s not the either-or proposition you seem to think it is. 

    Contrary to your claim that “Nobody controls their own store”, they do. And they’re also regulated.
    edited January 17 dope_ahminemacpluspluswatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 48
    “ Yeh -- he believed Australia when they said:  "Come on in!" “

    Of course Djokovic didn’t follow the requirement on the invitation that he be vaccinated, lied about his covid history and held an interview while infected. 
    Australians have worked really hard to limit deaths from the virus and really don’t like people that think they’re some kind of extra special. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 48
    @GeorgeBMac said:
    Will anybody trust the Aussies again?”
    Absolutely … no problem. Just follow their rules. Like all the other players did, including all of Djocovic’s Serbian countrymen.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 48
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,577member
    carnegie said:
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.
    And they didn't even imply that Apple couldn't continue to collect the commission. If anything, they tacitly acknowledged that Apple could do so.

    Apple's commission just isn't discussed - in either the ACM's summary of its decision or the provisional-relief judge's ruling on the ACM's order. That ruling discusses the issues at some length and doesn't refer to Apple charging a commission. It, e.g., goes through the ways in which Apple's abuse of its dominant position harm both developers and consumers but in doing so doesn't say anything about developers having to pay Apple a commission or consumers facing higher prices as a result. Rather, it specifies numerous other ways in which the anti-steering policy and the lack of choice in payment processing (for IAP) harms developers and consumers.
    The same with the Epic vs Apple case in the US. The Judge ruled Apple violated a vague and catch all CA Unfair Competition Law and that Apple had to allow developers to at least inform IAP purchasers that they could pay for their IAP on their website and can provide a link, inside their app. The Judge stopped short of requiring Apple to host a third party payment system inside the app. Which was what Epic really wanted.

    But the Judge also made a comment that Apple have the right to protect their intellectual property rights and the ability to obtain compensation for their use. Thus some of the limitations in Apple's DPLA (Developer Program License agreement are justified.

    The Judge ruling did not limit Apple ability to collect their commission. Otherwise she would not have ruled that Epic still had to pay Apple their commission on the revenue they made on IAP outside their iOS app, when they violated their DPLA by providing a link for payment outside their app. This before Apple shut them down. If the Judge thought that the commission was tied to Apple unfairly competing by forcing developers to use only iTunes to process payments, she would not have forced Epic to pay Apple their due commission on those payments that were made outside the app, after finding Apple violated CA UCL. 

    https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform

    https://www.imore.com/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million-result-epic-v-apple-lawsuit

    It really seems that all Apple has to do is to spell out in their DPLA that any app purchases, including IAP, are subject to a commission outlined in a rate table. If the developer don't pay up, Apple can remove them from the Apple App Store for breach of contract. Apple only needs to keep track of the purchases, not necessarily get hold of the actual  funds themselves.

    I don't think any country would claim that charging a commission, fee or obtaining a license, for using another entity services or IP, is somehow anti-competivie. Even the Judge in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit did not question Apple right to collect a commission for the use of their IP. Her only reservation was the percent of the commission. But even if the 30% seems high to the Judge, it was not a matter that the courts should be concern with, if there were no anti-trust violations.

    And Apple IP is not only the App Store and iTunes, but also iOS. If you buy a CD, you own the CD but only have "fair use" rights to the songs on it. If you want to use any of the songs on it commercially or to make money from by creating a derivative of it, the copyright owner has the right to obtain compensation for its commercial use or deny you any rights to use their songs for anything other than "fair use". iOS developers have no inherited rights to make money off iOS, without Apple permission or having to compensate Apple. Just like Xbox game developers have no right to develop and sell games for the Xbox, without Microsoft permission and compensating Microsoft. That's why there are copyrights laws to protect the rights of copyright owners. 


    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 48
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,368member
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    They are also supplying the APIs and in most cases the marketing. If Apple put those Apps in an alternate section that doesn’t benefit from Apple marketing would they still want a separate payment mechanism? In other words, if these developers were not highlighted in platform searches unless they paid for ads, but could be searches by name or sent to their page via a link, Kind of like Facebook, would they be happy or big mad?
    edited January 17 watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 48
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,243member
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    How does it fly against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level? The decision (as approved) was that Apple had to allow alternate payment processing for IAP and couldn't maintain its anti-steering policy. It didn't have anything to do with Apple's commission. Those are quite different things. The summary of the decision and the court's review of the decision don't in any way suggest that Apple can't continue to collect its commission. They don't, e.g., even mention the commission when they detail the ways in which the policies at issue affect developers and consumers.

    Perhaps the ACM will decide further that Apple can't collect its commission in this context. (That would, I hope, lead to some complaints from U.S. trade representatives on Apple's behalf and pursuant to, e.g., the WIPO Copyright Treaty.) But as the order exists (and as affirmed by the provisional-relief judge), Apple's commission isn't implicated.
    I meant at it's 'most basic level' by potentially being anti-competitive, which is one of the aspects I believe the Dutch authorities are linking to.

    That is why I mentioned this as forming a part of a much bigger puzzle, as numerous national agencies within the EU are looking into complaints against the company, on top of the investigations being carried out at an EU level. 

    References to cuts and commissions are simply due to the wording used in the title here and Apple's own linking of the order in its documentation. That's why I said 'on the face of it' and in the 'spirit' of the decision. 

    It very much looks like (again, at a very basic level) that Apple is challenging the authorities at least with what the article is detailing. 

    As I said, it's as if Apple is saying 'whatever you order us to do' [in the spirit of freeing up competition] we'll take a cut anyway.

    Is that harming competition? 

    That's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. 


  • Reply 33 of 48
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,243member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 
    Of course merchants control their own stores. You’re confusing control with regulation, but they’re not mutually exclusive. You can control your store, and also be regulated with things you cannot control. 
    Regulation is control. You control your store in line with regulations. 
    Being regulated has no bearing on what you claimed - that “nobody controls their own stores”. Yes, they do. It so happens they themselves are also regulated (everybody has a boss, so to speak), but that doesn’t somehow mean they do not control the aspects of their store within their ability to control. What on earth?

    avon b7 said:
    rob53 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 
    Your control is limited to what regulations allow for. You don't have a free ride to do whatever you want. 
    Oh you just moved the goalposts. That goes without saying, which is why nobody claimed merchants have a free ride to “do whatever they want”. You’re making a false dichotomy - no control, or whatever they want. IRL: merchants are free to control their stores, and they are also regulated. It’s not the either-or proposition you seem to think it is. 

    Contrary to your claim that “Nobody controls their own store”, they do. And they’re also regulated.
    I can only assume you haven't read the post I was contesting. Please go back read that and tell where I moved the goalposts. 
  • Reply 34 of 48
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    “ Yeh -- he believed Australia when they said:  "Come on in!" “

    Of course Djokovic didn’t follow the requirement on the invitation that he be vaccinated, lied about his covid history and held an interview while infected. 
    Australians have worked really hard to limit deaths from the virus and really don’t like people that think they’re some kind of extra special. 

    Irrelevant.  This wasn't about COVID, it was all about Australian politics.
    Australia welcomed him -- until Morrison started taking political heat and threw him into detention -- not because of anything Djokovic may have done or not done, but because of Australian politics. 

    I would trust Djokovic a lot more than I do Australia.
    If you tell a person "Come on in" don't then turn around, disparage the person and throw them into a hell hole of detention over a political feud.  That's bullshit.  

    Australia owes Djokovic a huge apology and reparations for what they put him through -- and they need to remove Morrison from any position of responsibility.  Because he isn't. 
  • Reply 35 of 48
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    @GeorgeBMac said:
    Will anybody trust the Aussies again?”
    Absolutely … no problem. Just follow their rules. Like all the other players did, including all of Djocovic’s Serbian countrymen.

    He did.  They said "Come on in!"   So he came -- and everyone knew he was coming.
    Unfortunately Scott Morrison realized it might make him look bad politically and he might lose his tough guy image -- so he trash talked Djokovic, threw him into detention and then manipulated to get him thrown out of the country.   That wasn't done to save Australia from COVID but to save Morrison's political ass -- which is what he is.

    Only a fool would trust those Aussies again.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 48
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    davidw said:
    carnegie said:
    longfang said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    Spirit of the rules count for squat. If it’s so important for Apple to miss out on commissions then write it down in the rules rather than “imply” it.
    And they didn't even imply that Apple couldn't continue to collect the commission. If anything, they tacitly acknowledged that Apple could do so.

    Apple's commission just isn't discussed - in either the ACM's summary of its decision or the provisional-relief judge's ruling on the ACM's order. That ruling discusses the issues at some length and doesn't refer to Apple charging a commission. It, e.g., goes through the ways in which Apple's abuse of its dominant position harm both developers and consumers but in doing so doesn't say anything about developers having to pay Apple a commission or consumers facing higher prices as a result. Rather, it specifies numerous other ways in which the anti-steering policy and the lack of choice in payment processing (for IAP) harms developers and consumers.
    The same with the Epic vs Apple case in the US. The Judge ruled Apple violated a vague and catch all CA Unfair Competition Law and that Apple had to allow developers to at least inform IAP purchasers that they could pay for their IAP on their website and can provide a link, inside their app. The Judge stopped short of requiring Apple to host a third party payment system inside the app. Which was what Epic really wanted.

    But the Judge also made a comment that Apple have the right to protect their intellectual property rights and the ability to obtain compensation for their use. Thus some of the limitations in Apple's DPLA (Developer Program License agreement are justified.

    The Judge ruling did not limit Apple ability to collect their commission. Otherwise she would not have ruled that Epic still had to pay Apple their commission on the revenue they made on IAP outside their iOS app, when they violated their DPLA by providing a link for payment outside their app. This before Apple shut them down. If the Judge thought that the commission was tied to Apple unfairly competing by forcing developers to use only iTunes to process payments, she would not have forced Epic to pay Apple their due commission on those payments that were made outside the app, after finding Apple violated CA UCL. 

    https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform

    https://www.imore.com/epic-games-pays-apple-6-million-result-epic-v-apple-lawsuit

    It really seems that all Apple has to do is to spell out in their DPLA that any app purchases, including IAP, are subject to a commission outlined in a rate table. If the developer don't pay up, Apple can remove them from the Apple App Store for breach of contract. Apple only needs to keep track of the purchases, not necessarily get hold of the actual  funds themselves.

    I don't think any country would claim that charging a commission, fee or obtaining a license, for using another entity services or IP, is somehow anti-competivie. Even the Judge in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit did not question Apple right to collect a commission for the use of their IP. Her only reservation was the percent of the commission. But even if the 30% seems high to the Judge, it was not a matter that the courts should be concern with, if there were no anti-trust violations.

    And Apple IP is not only the App Store and iTunes, but also iOS. If you buy a CD, you own the CD but only have "fair use" rights to the songs on it. If you want to use any of the songs on it commercially or to make money from by creating a derivative of it, the copyright owner has the right to obtain compensation for its commercial use or deny you any rights to use their songs for anything other than "fair use". iOS developers have no inherited rights to make money off iOS, without Apple permission or having to compensate Apple. Just like Xbox game developers have no right to develop and sell games for the Xbox, without Microsoft permission and compensating Microsoft. That's why there are copyrights laws to protect the rights of copyright owners. 



    That was a great summary.
    But it seems to boil down to private parties (mis)using legal systems for private gain more than any right-or-wrong, legal-or-illegal.  And it seems to be getting more and more popular.
  • Reply 37 of 48
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    I don't see where Apple's comment is contrary to the spirit of the Netherlands ACM's decision. Whether Apple could continue to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP wasn't at issue. The summary of the decision doesn't even mention Apple's commission. Apple's commission isn't what the ACM concluded was problematic.

    If the ACM meant to prevent Apple from collecting the commission, its failure in the summary to mention the commission and explain why it's problematic would seem conspicuous. But the reality is this decision isn't about the commission. Whether or not the Netherlands would like to prevent Apple from collecting that commission, it likely understands that it probably can't. Doing so would probably violate international intellectual property agreements.
    I haven't followed the case beyond what it was based on which is anti competitive behaviour under EU regulations and Dutch consumer protections. 

    Apple basically coming out and saying 'we'll get our cut one way or another' flies against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level. 

    But that's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. As it is right now, according to AI, the Dutch authorities are studying Apple's proposal to see if it is acceptable. 
    How does it fly against the spirit of the decision at a very basic level? The decision (as approved) was that Apple had to allow alternate payment processing for IAP and couldn't maintain its anti-steering policy. It didn't have anything to do with Apple's commission. Those are quite different things. The summary of the decision and the court's review of the decision don't in any way suggest that Apple can't continue to collect its commission. They don't, e.g., even mention the commission when they detail the ways in which the policies at issue affect developers and consumers.

    Perhaps the ACM will decide further that Apple can't collect its commission in this context. (That would, I hope, lead to some complaints from U.S. trade representatives on Apple's behalf and pursuant to, e.g., the WIPO Copyright Treaty.) But as the order exists (and as affirmed by the provisional-relief judge), Apple's commission isn't implicated.
    I meant at it's 'most basic level' by potentially being anti-competitive, which is one of the aspects I believe the Dutch authorities are linking to.

    That is why I mentioned this as forming a part of a much bigger puzzle, as numerous national agencies within the EU are looking into complaints against the company, on top of the investigations being carried out at an EU level. 

    References to cuts and commissions are simply due to the wording used in the title here and Apple's own linking of the order in its documentation. That's why I said 'on the face of it' and in the 'spirit' of the decision. 

    It very much looks like (again, at a very basic level) that Apple is challenging the authorities at least with what the article is detailing. 

    As I said, it's as if Apple is saying 'whatever you order us to do' [in the spirit of freeing up competition] we'll take a cut anyway.

    Is that harming competition? 

    That's why I said we'll have to see how it plays out. 



    "Anti-Competitive" has become a buzzword used by certain groups to attack another.
    But capitalism itself is based on an anti-competitive premise:  each business strives to be the biggest and the best.   They aren't there to promote competiion.  They are there to make money by promoting their product.  Like it or not, that's capitalism.

    Anti-Competitive should not come into play until the organization has such power and control over an industry that they are misusing their power to the detriment of society.  But, the lesser players will use that mantra to get from the legal system what they can't get in a free and fair market place.

    For example:
    If a kid opens a lemonaid stand selling both lemonaid and cookies from his dad's bakery the kid across the street selling only lemonaid could sue him for "anti-competitive behavior" because he couldn't compete.
    edited January 18
  • Reply 38 of 48
    rob53 said:
    avon b7 said:
    Very fair, they developed an audience and a platform people trust, they deserve a cut. 

    Every online store gets a cut from sales.

    It's already bizarre that they can't control their own store.
    Nobody controls their own store. Before you can even open one there are huge amounts of rules and regulations to deal with. 

    On the face of it, this comment by Apple does not appear to be in the spirit of the rule but we'll have to see how it plays out. 

    At the end of the day all of this is basically part of a bigger puzzle and no one knows what it's going to look like yet. 
    Looks like plenty of stores control their stores. I don’t know of any store that allows vendors to use a store’s space for free. Apple provides the store, provides access to it by developers and they have to be paid just like any other store. 
    So wrong in so many ways.  You make it sound like Apple is some victim and developers are out of their mind for thinking Apple should give them free rent.

    The reality is, Apple is forcing developers to sell their product exclusively at Apple's App Store AND are forced to pay (what many call excessive) 30% on their sales.

    Nobody wants free rent on the App Store.  What developers want are choices.  Choices to sell their iOS apps at other marketplaces at competitive rates.  Does that just blow your mind that someone would want choices and competitive prices?  Apple and competitive pricing doesn't usually appear in the same sentence, though, do they?
  • Reply 39 of 48
    robaba said:
    cropr said:
    Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 
    Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple
    I think that number is probably a little misleading. For example I have an app for my bank on my phone. My bank makes nothing off the app, it is free and has on IAP but while they don't make a profit off of the app they are still a profitable entity. I personally have a host of apps like this on my phone. They are free apps with no IAP but they are linked to something else that is profitable (Garmin, Slack, Philips Hue, ecobee, United Airlines, Avis, various hotels, USA Triathlon, local rail). So yeah a ton of apps don't make a profit or even generate revenue in app but it doesn't mean the developer doesn't make money. 
    In you’re scenario The Bank is not the developer of the App in question, but the owner.  They do not have a legion of code-monkeys pounding away at their keyboards.  Instead they use 3rd party vendors that develop and maintain the code.  Guarantee you that 3rd party got/gets paid.
    Right, I didn’t mean to insinuate otherwise. My point is that one cannot use revenue made from the AppStore to decide if a developer makes money or not. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 48
    bkPJbkPJ Posts: 1member
    The comments here seem focused on developers. These fees are also a tax on Apple customers for buying into the ecosystem.
Sign In or Register to comment.