Apple argues that separate app binaries comply with Dutch app payment law

AppleInsider

Apple's requirement for dating apps in the Netherlands to submit a separate binary if they want to use alternate payment systems is reasonable, Apple argues in its letter to a dutch regulator, since it's a process Apple follows in other regions.

Earlier on Monday, a report claimed Apple had informed the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) in the Netherlands that it does comply with an order to enable dating apps in the country to use alternate payment systems other than the App Store in-app purchase mechanism. In a letter acquired by AppleInsider, Apple argues it complies with the order by requiring separate binaries.

The letter by Apple Chief Compliance Officer Kyle Andeer to the ACM, follows after a meeting between the two parties over the order. The meeting focused on Apple's requirement that a developer submits a separate binary for the Dutch App Store if they want to use a third-party payment processor.

The ACM complained on February 22 that "the revised conditions that Apple has imposed on dating-app providers are unreasonable, and create an unnecessary barrier." It was deemed the need for a second binary submission to be an "unreasonable condition that is at odds with the requirements that Apple had set out."

"This is a straightforward prerequisite that ensures that Apple complies with its legal obligations in the Netherlands while at the same time having the ability to maintain its standard terms and conditions in the rest of the world," writes Apple. "Developers routinely offer separate binaries for different jurisdictions."

The letter continues "Developers of some types of apps must submit separate versions of their apps to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations. We also see developers offer different versions of their apps in different jurisdictions for other reasons"

It offers Match Group as an example, a dating app provider that offers different binaries of its apps in numerous countries.

"To ensure that it is compliant with Dutch law, and that it does not apply Dutch law outside of the Netherlands, Apple has asked developers to submit a separate binary for the Netherlands storefront if they intend to use a payment service other than IAP. This approach is the same approach Apple and developers use in other jurisdictions where there are unique legal issues that require a different approach in a particular jurisdiction."

Apple insists it is "not costly or difficult for a developer," and that dating apps are not only familiar with the process, but they also "engage in it voluntarily."

"Apple believes its solution is fully compliant with Dutch law. Apple has a consistent and longstanding commitment to compliance in each and every country in which we do business. We take these obligations very seriously."

Apple understands that there is a "difference of opinion that may ultimately have to be resolved by a court," but hopes to find a "mutually agreeable solution" on the matter.

Apple Letter to Netherlands by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd

(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Read on AppleInsider

chadbag

So there, Holland. Take that!

/s

pizzaboxmac

This letter will quickly go into the falling on deaf ears pile.

foregoneconclusion

Seems relatively straightforward to me. I have never understood why the ACM viewed this kind of approach as "unreasonable". 

crowley

I was under the impression that Match would need to submit one app binary that supported Apple Pay, and another that supported the alternative payment system, and that neither app could support both.  That sounds unreasonable, as it is introducing a complication and confusion for the user.  Is that incorrect?  

If the requirement is just that Match submit a single different app for the Netherlands because of the difference in functionality then that seems not only reasonable but eminently sensible.

foregoneconclusion

crowley said:

I was under the impression that Match would need to submit one app binary that supported Apple Pay, and another that supported the alternative payment system, and that neither app could support both.  That sounds unreasonable, as it is introducing a complication and confusion for the user.  Is that incorrect?  

That's what the ACM is claiming to be "unreasonable", but Apple is arguing that it's a standard approach throughout the world in the App Store and not necessarily limited to legal situations either. There are companies (like Apple's example of Match Group) that use more than one binary by choice. 

aderutter

It is trivial and straightforward to have more than one version of an app for a distinct territory. 

It sounds like ACM have not correctly understood Apple’ requirements. 

For example it makes much more sense for the Dutch law to be implemented with a distinct app rather than the app having to try to determine if the user is in Holland or not. 

What if a Dutch citizen has the app and goes to Germany? In Apple’s method the user has the same experience as when they are in Holland. Otherwise they will lose the ability to use an alternative payment mechanism when outside Holland.

Dutch law does not count when a user is in a different territory!

omasou

Awesome Apple!

Thinking differently is what make you Apple!!!

Stabitha_Christie

crowley said:

I was under the impression that Match would need to submit one app binary that supported Apple Pay, and another that supported the alternative payment system, and that neither app could support both.  That sounds unreasonable, as it is introducing a complication and confusion for the user.  Is that incorrect?  

If the requirement is just that Match submit a single different app for the Netherlands because of the difference in functionality then that seems not only reasonable but eminently sensible.

I think you meant IAP (in app purchase) not Apple Pay. 

22july2013

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

crowley

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said:

I was under the impression that Match would need to submit one app binary that supported Apple Pay, and another that supported the alternative payment system, and that neither app could support both.  That sounds unreasonable, as it is introducing a complication and confusion for the user.  Is that incorrect?  

That's what the ACM is claiming to be "unreasonable", but Apple is arguing that it's a standard approach throughout the world in the App Store and not necessarily limited to legal situations either. There are companies (like Apple's example of Match Group) that use more than one binary by choice. 

Do we know why Match Group have different binaries in the store?  I can only see one in the app store and find it puzzling why they'd choose to have different binaries of the same app.

If not, are there any other good examples of apps that have multiple binaries in order to deliver very slight variations in functionality comparable to a different in-app payment provider?  I'm curious to know the reason, and whether it's really choice, or more of a technical necessity that has resulted in the situation.

Stabitha_Christie said:

crowley said:

I was under the impression that Match would need to submit one app binary that supported Apple Pay, and another that supported the alternative payment system, and that neither app could support both.  That sounds unreasonable, as it is introducing a complication and confusion for the user.  Is that incorrect?  

If the requirement is just that Match submit a single different app for the Netherlands because of the difference in functionality then that seems not only reasonable but eminently sensible.

I think you meant IAP (in app purchase) not Apple Pay. 

I did, thanks.

crowley

22july2013 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

You are not.

davidw

crowley said:

I was under the impression that Match would need to submit one app binary that supported Apple Pay, and another that supported the alternative payment system, and that neither app could support both.  That sounds unreasonable, as it is introducing a complication and confusion for the user.  Is that incorrect?  

If the requirement is just that Match submit a single different app for the Netherlands because of the difference in functionality then that seems not only reasonable but eminently sensible.

The logical question would be ....... Why would the dating service app developers want to submit more than one binary (with different payment system) of their app, in the App Store? 

The complaint file by the Match Group was on behalf of the dating app developers and claimed that dating app developers should be allowed to have a choice of which payment system they wanted to use in their app. The choices are, iTunes, their own in-house payment system or a link to a third party payment system website. This was not about the dating service app customers having a choice of which payment system they wanted to use. The dating service customers did not file the complaint with the ACM. And the ACM court order do not address that Apple must provide the dating service customers with a choice of payment systems, at all. 

So if one were to think about it, if a dating service have an in-house payment system, why would they want to create another binary of their app, so that their customers can use iTunes. Obviously, it makes no sense to offer iTunes as a choice for customers using iPhones and iPads, even with-in one app, as iTunes is the way most iOS customers would choose to use. (Why would one provide a dating service app with CC info, if one don't have to.)  After all, the developers are going to save a whopping 3% on the commission when their customers uses their in-house payment system. So they would only need ONE app using their own in-house payment system, in the App Store. (It would also make no sense for them to also provide a link to their own website, so customers can pay that way, using the same in-house payment system.)

Now, if  dating service do not have their own in-house payment system and rely on a third party for payment, then obviously their only choice would be an app that link to that third party payment system website. Again, why include iTunes in their app or with another app, as a choice for their iDevice customers?  So they too, would only need to have ONE app in the App Store.  

Of course, if the dating service do not have their own in-house payment system or use a third party payment system, then they have to use iTunes. And again, they only need  ONE app in the App Store. 

The dating app developers got what they wanted, the choice to use what ever payment system they wanted, in their app. This was never about the dating service customers having that choice or the dating service app developers being able to offer their customers that choice.  

On the other hand, with the S. Korea case, Android readers app developers can include multiple choices of payments in one app, but one of them must be Google Pay (when the app is in the Google Play Store.). 

22july2013

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

You are not.

Then how do you explain Apple's statement, "Developers of some types of apps must submit separate versions of their apps to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations" which sounds like Apple is asking for the app to be local to the Netherlands? Do you care to contribute anything useful to this conversation?

Naiyas

davidw said:

The logical question would be ....... Why would the dating service app developers want to submit more than one binary (with different payment system) of their app, in the App Store? 

What is being proposed by Apple here is that there is 1 app binary for the Dutch App Store (the Dutch market) and 1 for the rest of the world (provided there are no other requirements elsewhere that would hinder this - which there will be!) this is perfectly reasonable and is done today for many apps, as pointed out by Apple.

There are many reasons developers produce different binaries to the App Store for different regions (countries). I have had to deploy different binaries for a couple of apps because of different regulatory requirements in the financial services space to name one area - if you have bank accounts with the “same global” bank but in multiple countries you’d have experienced this.

It is absolutely a pain in the ass as a consumer IF you need multi-territory access to your global bank accounts because you need to download each country’s app from the different country app stores using different Apple IDs registered in the different territories. However, for most consumers who are not expats they will not even notice the difference as they will only have one Apple ID registered to a single country and therefore will only ever see the single app in the country App Store their Apple ID is registered in.

Basically, for the end user it is transparent to them in the case of the dating app mentioned in the article. In its simplest deployment there would be 2 binaries: 1 for those not mandating 3rd party IAP; and 1 for countries that do.

crowley

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

You are not.

Then how do you explain Apple's statement, "Developers of some types of apps must submit separate versions of their apps to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations" which sounds like Apple is asking for the app to be local to the Netherlands? Do you care to contribute anything useful to this conversation?

I think it's quite clear: they are establishing that different versions of some other apps exist for different countries where there are different laws that apply to the app.  They are saying it to illustrate that having different versions of apps for different territories is a very normal thing.  They are saying nothing about Dutch courts wanting their rules to apply outside the Netherlands, because that would be stupid.

CheeseFreeze

chadbag said:

So there, Holland. Take that!

/s

Holland is not The Netherlands. Holland is a region in The Netherlands. 

Also, grow up. 

OutdoorAppDeveloper

Focus on the users needs not Apple's or the developers. Should a user be forced to download a different app if they want to use a payment system other than Apple's? How is this not confusing to users? If there is a different app for a particular country, as in Apple's example, only that app appears on the App Store when the user searches for it so it is not confusing. Having two identical apps on the same App Store is confusing to everyone. App names are short, the icons will likely look identical so it's all a big confusing mess to users.

22july2013

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

You are not.

Then how do you explain Apple's statement, "Developers of some types of apps must submit separate versions of their apps to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations" which sounds like Apple is asking for the app to be local to the Netherlands? Do you care to contribute anything useful to this conversation?

I think it's quite clear: they are establishing that different versions of some other apps exist for different countries where there are different laws that apply to the app.  

That is exactly right! And that's exactly what the Netherlands is objecting to! Hence, my point.

crowley

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

You are not.

Then how do you explain Apple's statement, "Developers of some types of apps must submit separate versions of their apps to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations" which sounds like Apple is asking for the app to be local to the Netherlands? Do you care to contribute anything useful to this conversation?

I think it's quite clear: they are establishing that different versions of some other apps exist for different countries where there are different laws that apply to the app.  

That is exactly right! And that's exactly what the Netherlands is objecting to! Hence, my point.

Then you haven’t read and/or understood why they’re objecting, which is reported in this article and the previous one.  It’s nothing to do with applying Netherlands law outside the Netherlands. Not least because, once again, that would be stupid.

22july2013

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

Am I correct in understanding that the Dutch courts want their rules for IAPs to apply to all jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands? HAHAHA.

You are not.

Then how do you explain Apple's statement, "Developers of some types of apps must submit separate versions of their apps to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations" which sounds like Apple is asking for the app to be local to the Netherlands? Do you care to contribute anything useful to this conversation?

I think it's quite clear: they are establishing that different versions of some other apps exist for different countries where there are different laws that apply to the app.  

That is exactly right! And that's exactly what the Netherlands is objecting to! Hence, my point.

Then you haven’t read and/or understood why they’re objecting, which is reported in this article and the previous one.  It’s nothing to do with applying Netherlands law outside the Netherlands. Not least because, once again, that would be stupid.

You always have the option explaining what the actual truth is. For some reasons you refuse to explain yourself whenever you debate with me. Basically all you say to me is "No no no!"