Long story short the companies that are complaining thought, rather naively, that the DMA would force Apple to lower or remove their fees and remove roadblocks.
Apple has no intention of making it easy for companies like this. They’ve made it very clear that they, for whatever reason, feel fully justified in their fee structure and so, yes, they’ve worked out how to make the ruling effectively pointless.
Personally I think Apple should have lowered their fees years ago. They’d have avoided years of negative press over it and could have demonstrated that they are reasonable.
Still, my personal feeling is irrelevant. Apple will continue to fight this tooth and nail.
Why should they lower their fees? 30% has been an industry standard. Video game console stores charge developers 30% for downloads and no one is suing over that. It’s such a stupid argument to say any amount is “too high.” It’s their business. If you or any developer or end user believes their commission is too high then don’t use them and don’t develop for them. Why should anyone else decide what cut they get on their platform that is a minority of the market?
Apple *created* that ‘industry standard’. By lowering prices, they’ll look favorable vs the other players out there such as PlayStation, who no doubt must be bracing for probes (already happening by individual EU countries such as Romania and France).
What people fail to understand is that Apple is so big that they no longer operate *in* the economy, they *are* the economy.
Instead of coming with the same argument over and over, why not read the EU arguments in detail and accept this is reality? Even the US is now heading into that direction, and the US will now have a very important pilot to base their arguments on. “You mentioned it would be a secure nightmare but in fact that turned out to be negligible” being one potential argument.
There is a delicate balance between what a commercial entity wants and what the government wants. Both extremes are wrong. The Dutch government forced ASML not to sell chip machines to be sold to China because that would basically give away a certain advantage, essentially losing a very lucrative customer. Is that fair to ASML? Not really, so the government will need to do something back. It’s a relationship.
Long story short the companies that are complaining thought, rather naively, that the DMA would force Apple to lower or remove their fees and remove roadblocks.
Apple has no intention of making it easy for companies like this. They’ve made it very clear that they, for whatever reason, feel fully justified in their fee structure and so, yes, they’ve worked out how to make the ruling effectively pointless.
Personally I think Apple should have lowered their fees years ago. They’d have avoided years of negative press over it and could have demonstrated that they are reasonable.
Still, my personal feeling is irrelevant. Apple will continue to fight this tooth and nail.
short story long ....
What most companies (that lobbied heavily for the DMA) were expecting was that the DMA would allow them to bypass Apple commission (whether Apple lowered them or not) and be able to use Apple IP for free, like how it is with Android. That has always been their goal. You think the likes of Epic and their Coalition for App Fairness, cares about more competition? Nothing in the DMA allow others to profit from Apple IP, without some sort of compensation to Apple. Nothing in the DMA addresses Apple (or any other "gatekeeper") ability to profit from their own IP. So far, no government have stated that Apple is not allowed to charge a commission or fee, for the commercial use of their IP. The EU never claimed that Apple collecting their 15/30% commission was a barrier to more competition (within their own ecosystem). And the EU DMA is all about fostering more competition from smaller EU companies.
What the EU consider barriers (roadblocks) to competition was that Apple did not allow any third party app stores, sideloading or other payment methods (for the purchase of apps or IAP) within their platform). And these are only barriers if the the platform itself falls within the arbitrary criteria set by the DMA AND that the owner (of the platform) falls within the arbitrary criteria set by the DMA, to be labeled a "gatekeeper". ( For example, the 30% commission is not a barrier on game console platforms.) The thinking by the EU with their DMA, was that removing these barriers (roadblocks) to foster more competition, Apple would lower their commission to compete. And it did (or will if approved), in the EU Apple App Store at least, where Apple will lower their commission. But there was no expectation by the EU that Apple would be forced to lower or eliminate their commission. After all, Google charges about the same commission (as Apple) with their Google Play Store and they allow third party app stores, sideloading and other payment methods on Android. And if one think about it, by Apple lowering their commission, it makes it harder for smaller developers (that wants to open their own app store) to compete with Apple.
The naive thinking was that many companies (that lobbied heavily for the DMA) and iOS users (that wants sideloading), were thinking that Apple was going to allow third party app stores, sideloading and other payment methods, the way it's done on Android. That was never going to happen. Android and iOS exist for two very different reasons. Google uses Android to capture as many consumers as possible, so to mine their personal data with as many ways as possible, in order to sell targeted ads at a premium. That is Google business model. On the other hand, Apple business model is to use their iOS platform as a feature to sell their own hardware at a premium. And one of iOS feature is that it offers more security and privacy than Android. So no way was Apple going to make iOS like Android. (And Microsoft makes their profit from selling licenses to use Windows.)
And the EU DMA actually allows Apple to do what they are planning to do, by being able to collect a commission or fee, for every app installed on iOS. The DMA clearly states that more competition should not come at the expense of security or consumer privacy. But it also states that security and privacy concerns, can not solely be used as an excuse to not implement mandates that allows for more competition. But it's up to Apple to come up with solutions to allow for third party app stores, sideloading and other payment methods without or at least minimizes, compromising security and privacy. And this is Apple solution.
BTW- So far, all the EU DMA will do (if Apple plans are approved) is to give the largest developers that are currently selling apps in the EU, a huge "tax break". By Apple lowering their commission from 30% to 17% (in anticipation of more competition), the wealthiest of wealthy EU developers got a whopping 43% "tax break", as they all can use their own payment methods that they already have in place. Where as the smaller less wealthy developers got a 14% "tax break" (from 15% to 13%) as most of those developers can not afford to set up their own payment systems. That is something one would expect in the US, where a capitalistic economy carters to the benefit of large corporations. Not in the EU, where their economy is more socialistic and caters more to the benefit of its consumers. It is almost unheard of for the EU government to give such a large "tax break" to the wealthiest of wealthy developers, while giving the much less wealthy ones peanuts and with no expectation of any real benefits for its consumers along the way.
Long story short the companies that are complaining thought, rather naively, that the DMA would force Apple to lower or remove their fees and remove roadblocks.
Apple has no intention of making it easy for companies like this. They’ve made it very clear that they, for whatever reason, feel fully justified in their fee structure and so, yes, they’ve worked out how to make the ruling effectively pointless.
Personally I think Apple should have lowered their fees years ago. They’d have avoided years of negative press over it and could have demonstrated that they are reasonable.
Still, my personal feeling is irrelevant. Apple will continue to fight this tooth and nail.
short story long ....
What most companies (that lobbied heavily for the DMA) were expecting was that the DMA would allow them to bypass Apple commission (whether Apple lowered them or not) and be able to use Apple IP for free, like how it is with Android. That has always been their goal. You think the likes of Epic and their Coalition for App Fairness, cares about more competition? Nothing in the DMA allow others to profit from Apple IP, without some sort of compensation to Apple. Nothing in the DMA addresses Apple (or any other "gatekeeper") ability to profit from their own IP. So far, no government have stated that Apple is not allowed to charge a commission or fee, for the commercial use of their IP. The EU never claimed that Apple collecting their 15/30% commission was a barrier to more competition (within their own ecosystem). And the EU DMA is all about fostering more competition from smaller EU companies.
What the EU consider barriers (roadblocks) to competition was that Apple did not allow any third party app stores, sideloading or other payment methods (for the purchase of apps or IAP) within their platform). And these are only barriers if the the platform itself falls within the arbitrary criteria set by the DMA AND that the owner (of the platform) falls within the arbitrary criteria set by the DMA, to be labeled a "gatekeeper". ( For example, the 30% commission is not a barrier on game console platforms.) The thinking by the EU with their DMA, was that removing these barriers (roadblocks) to foster more competition, Apple would lower their commission to compete. And it did (or will if approved), in the EU Apple App Store at least, where Apple will lower their commission. But there was no expectation by the EU that Apple would be forced to lower or eliminate their commission. After all, Google charges about the same commission (as Apple) with their Google Play Store and they allow third party app stores, sideloading and other payment methods on Android. And if one think about it, by Apple lowering their commission, it makes it harder for smaller developers (that wants to open their own app store) to compete with Apple.
The naive thinking was that many companies (that lobbied heavily for the DMA) and iOS users (that wants sideloading), were thinking that Apple was going to allow third party app stores, sideloading and other payment methods, the way it's done on Android. That was never going to happen. Android and iOS exist for two very different reasons. Google uses Android to capture as many consumers as possible, so to mine their personal data with as many ways as possible, in order to sell targeted ads at a premium. That is Google business model. On the other hand, Apple business model is to use their iOS platform as a feature to sell their own hardware at a premium. And one of iOS feature is that it offers more security and privacy than Android. So no way was Apple going to make iOS like Android. (And Microsoft makes their profit from selling licenses to use Windows.)
And the EU DMA actually allows Apple to do what they are planning to do, by being able to collect a commission or fee, for every app installed on iOS. The DMA clearly states that more competition should not come at the expense of security or consumer privacy. But it also states that security and privacy concerns, can not solely be used as an excuse to not implement mandates that allows for more competition. But it's up to Apple to come up with solutions to allow for third party app stores, sideloading and other payment methods without or at least minimizes, compromising security and privacy. And this is Apple solution.
BTW- So far, all the EU DMA will do (if Apple plans are approved) is to give the largest developers that are currently selling apps in the EU, a huge "tax break". By Apple lowering their commission from 30% to 17% (in anticipation of more competition), the wealthiest of wealthy EU developers got a whopping 43% "tax break", as they all can use their own payment methods that they already have in place. Where as the smaller less wealthy developers got a 14% "tax break" (from 15% to 13%) as most of those developers can not afford to set up their own payment systems. That is something one would expect in the US, where a capitalistic economy carters to the benefit of large corporations. Not in the EU, where their economy is more socialistic and caters more to the benefit of its consumers. It is almost unheard of for the EU government to give such a large "tax break" to the wealthiest of wealthy developers, while giving the much less wealthy ones peanuts and with no expectation of any real benefits for its consumers along the way.
The long story short.
This move by Apple needs to be accepted/approved.
The DMA/DSA explicitly provides for businesses and end consumers being able to lodge complaints.
I'm sure there will be numerous cases.
There are many questions about Apple's plans that might be frowned upon.
The DMA says:
"In certain cases, for instance through the imposition of contractual terms and conditions, gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or through direct online sales channels. Where such restrictions relate to third-party online intermediation services, they limit inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation services for end users. Where such restrictions relate to direct online sales channels, they unfairly limit the freedom of business users to use such channels. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services or direct online sales channels and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users."
And this:
"The conduct of requiring business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any other core platform services of gatekeepers listed in the designation decision or which meet the thresholds of active end users and business users set out in this Regulation, as a condition for using, accessing, signing up for or registering with a core platform service gives the gatekeepers a means of capturing and locking-in new business users and end users for their core platform services by ensuring that business users cannot access one core platform service without also at least registering or creating an account for the purposes of receiving a second core platform service. That conduct also gives gatekeepers a potential advantage in terms of accumulation of data. As such, this conduct is liable to raise barriers to entry and should be prohibited."
Apple imposing contractual terms and conditions would seem to fall foul here and the notion that users should not be required to register for core services may have implications for AppleIDs.
"In certain cases, for instance through the imposition of contractual terms and conditions, gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or through direct online sales channels.
Apple imposing contractual terms and conditions would seem to fall foul here and the notion that users should not be required to register for core services may have implications for AppleIDs.
LOL...terms/conditions are not outlawed by the DMA. Only ones that are considered too restrictive by the EU. Apple has already addressed those: alternate credit card processing, opening up NFC payments, third party stores etc. Of course, none of that will really end up having much impact on prices which is why the EU uses the weasel phrase "including price".
"In certain cases, for instance through the imposition of contractual terms and conditions, gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or through direct online sales channels.
Apple imposing contractual terms and conditions would seem to fall foul here and the notion that users should not be required to register for core services may have implications for AppleIDs.
LOL...terms/conditions are not outlawed by the DMA. Only ones that are considered too restrictive by the EU. Apple has already addressed those: alternate credit card processing, opening up NFC payments, third party stores etc. Of course, none of that will really end up having much impact on prices which is why the EU uses the weasel phrase "including price".
Terms and conditions that...
"gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price".
It is not the T&C alone but how they are used. We'll see if anyone complains officially and how the EU views 'compliance'.
It's no way as clear cut as some would seem to think.
Who gives a fuck what Spotify says? Why do people give them wait? Their response would have been 100% the same no matter what.
This asshole doesn't believe Apple has the right to design their own products. He wants to dictate the terms that are best for Spotify. These assholes want side loading and 3rd party app stores to be a tap away for consumers, they couldn't care less about the security of billions of devices, which Apple is responsible for.
Who gives a fuck what Spotify says? Why do people give them wait? Their response would have been 100% the same no matter what.
This asshole doesn't believe Apple has the right to design their own products. He wants to dictate the terms that are best for Spotify. These assholes want side loading and 3rd party app stores to be a tap away for consumers, they couldn't care less about the security of billions of devices, which Apple is responsible for.
Spotify I bet also thinks by not having to pay Apple's fees they'll start turning a profit when in fact I seriously doubt it. Apple isn't the reason why they're not turning a meaningful profit. Their business model is what is killing their own company yet they just keep going down the endless road to quarterly loss after quarterly loss. Why these investors keep pouring money into this endless money pit is beyond me. It's actually a shame because there are some good things Spotify does versus Apple Music but they need to do something different to make them a profitable business. What that is IDK I'm not a business expert.
Who gives a fuck what Spotify says? Why do people give them wait? Their response would have been 100% the same no matter what.
This asshole doesn't believe Apple has the right to design their own products. He wants to dictate the terms that are best for Spotify. These assholes want side loading and 3rd party app stores to be a tap away for consumers, they couldn't care less about the security of billions of devices, which Apple is responsible for.
Spotify I bet also thinks by not having to pay Apple's fees they'll start turning a profit when in fact I seriously doubt it. Apple isn't the reason why they're not turning a meaningful profit. Their business model is what is killing their own company yet they just keep going down the endless road to quarterly loss after quarterly loss. Why these investors keep pouring money into this endless money pit is beyond me. It's actually a shame because there are some good things Spotify does versus Apple Music but they need to do something different to make them a profitable business. What that is IDK I'm not a business expert.
Spotify doesn’t pay any fees to Apple nor Google.
It really needs to be repeated. Spotify doesn’t pay any fees to Apple and doesn’t pay any fees to Google. If an Android customer uses Google’s in-app purchase system, the fee is 4%, basically the cost of payment processing. And Android customers can use Spotify’s payment system and they don’t pay Google anything.
And of course they don’t pay fees to Apple, haven’t for several years. By repeating that Spotify wants to not paying Apple’s fee, you are just promulgating the white lie the media loves to tell because it makes for a nice story.
They are by far the dominant music streamer in the EU, and has 2x the marketshare of the 2nd place streamer.
While I don’t have too much sympathy for Spotify, Apple is really the bad guy here. The EU will eventually come down hard on them. We should be allowed to get the Apps WE want on our phones and not let Apple decide. There are so many great apps that will never come to be because Apple is the bully watchdog. At least they finally had to give in regarding the game streaming apps, but imagine for example parallels running on iPad OS. It might really be a full grown computer.
Go buy an Android phone and you can get all the malware loaded apps on offer.
Comments
What people fail to understand is that Apple is so big that they no longer operate *in* the economy, they *are* the economy.
The Dutch government forced ASML not to sell chip machines to be sold to China because that would basically give away a certain advantage, essentially losing a very lucrative customer. Is that fair to ASML? Not really, so the government will need to do something back. It’s a relationship.
This move by Apple needs to be accepted/approved.
The DMA/DSA explicitly provides for businesses and end consumers being able to lodge complaints.
I'm sure there will be numerous cases.
There are many questions about Apple's plans that might be frowned upon.
The DMA says:
"In certain cases, for instance through the imposition of contractual terms and conditions, gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services or through direct online sales channels. Where such restrictions relate to third-party online intermediation services, they limit inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation services for end users. Where such restrictions relate to direct online sales channels, they unfairly limit the freedom of business users to use such channels. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services or direct online sales channels and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users."
And this:
"The conduct of requiring business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any other core platform services of gatekeepers listed in the designation decision or which meet the thresholds of active end users and business users set out in this Regulation, as a condition for using, accessing, signing up for or registering with a core platform service gives the gatekeepers a means of capturing and locking-in new business users and end users for their core platform services by ensuring that business users cannot access one core platform service without also at least registering or creating an account for the purposes of receiving a second core platform service. That conduct also gives gatekeepers a potential advantage in terms of accumulation of data. As such, this conduct is liable to raise barriers to entry and should be prohibited."
Apple imposing contractual terms and conditions would seem to fall foul here and the notion that users should not be required to register for core services may have implications for AppleIDs.
We'll have to wait and see what the EU does.
"gatekeepers can restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer products or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price".
It is not the T&C alone but how they are used. We'll see if anyone complains officially and how the EU views 'compliance'.
It's no way as clear cut as some would seem to think.
This asshole doesn't believe Apple has the right to design their own products. He wants to dictate the terms that are best for Spotify. These assholes want side loading and 3rd party app stores to be a tap away for consumers, they couldn't care less about the security of billions of devices, which Apple is responsible for.