Apple's revised Dutch dating app payment changes are under review

Posted:
in iOS edited February 7
An antitrust regulator in the Netherlands is once again investigating whether Apple has done enough to comply with its order over dating app alternative payment options, after Apple said it would still require developers to pay a 27% commission for using a third-party payment system.




On February 4, it was revealed that Apple intended to charge developers a 27% commission fee for Dutch dating apps in the App Store that use alternate payment methods than the existing in-app purchases mechanism. The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is now looking into whether Apple complies with the order under the new measure.

The ACM requires Apple to allow dating apps in the Netherlands to handle in-app purchases through other methods, which Apple has worked to comply with. However, Apple said it intended to collect its commission from off-platform app-related purchases, with the 27% rate down from 30% to exclude the costs of payment processing.

The ACM told Reuters on Monday, Feb. 7 that it was looking at Apple's changes to see if the company now complies with the rules. Later on Monday, the regulator fined Apple another $5.7 million.

A previous examination on January 4 determined Apple didn't do enough, and the ACM started to levy a weekly 5 million euro ($5.6 million) fine. At the time, Apple insisted it was in compliance with the order, but the ACM disagreed.

The ACM said Apple hadn't implemented its plans for dating app developer payment options, but had instead only laid out its plans and allowed developers to register their interest.

Under Apple's changes, developers could choose between using the existing IAP system, including a third-party mechanism in the app, or linking out of the app to collect payment elsewhere. For the latter two, Apple would "not be aware of purchases," so the developers would have to handle users with "refunds, purchase history, subscription management" and related queries.

Apple would also need developers to report sales, and for the payment of the reduced commission, under the penalty of removal from the App Store or the Apple Developer program entirely.

Update 12:00 p.m. ET: Updated with weekly fine on Apple.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    Good luck ACM! What are they going to say now. Apple is not allowed to charge for use of their platform. There is not something like a free ride in this world :-)
    radarthekatforegoneconclusionwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 17
    pwrmac said:
    Good luck ACM! What are they going to say now. Apple is not allowed to charge for use of their platform. There is not something like a free ride in this world :-)
    If Apple wants to insist on these fees, the regulators should just go for the sideloading angle instead.

    They can't charge a commission when they aren't the ones selling the product.
  • Reply 3 of 17
    "Look, it's our store and our infrastructure.  You're going to pay us to use it, one way or another.  Or you're not going to use it."
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 17
    dantheman827 said: If Apple wants to insist on these fees, the regulators should just go for the sideloading angle instead.

    They can't charge a commission when they aren't the ones selling the product.
    Tinder already had a web based version of their service, so technically 3rd party payments were already available to iOS users. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 17
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,018member
    The regulators wanted alternative payment systems, they got them. Their order said nothing about Apple not being able to charge a commission.

    pwrmac said:
    Good luck ACM! What are they going to say now. Apple is not allowed to charge for use of their platform. There is not something like a free ride in this world :-)
    If Apple wants to insist on these fees, the regulators should just go for the sideloading angle instead.

    They can't charge a commission when they aren't the ones selling the product.
    And how’s that working out for Google? From what I read the vast, vast, majority of Android users stick with the Google Play Store. Even with third party app stores Google is still being attacked for its commissions policy. So even though users can go to other app stores they still use Google Play and willingly pay the 30% commission.

    So who are the sots that are always clamoring for all this fake ‘freedom’?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 17
    lkrupp said:
    The regulators wanted alternative payment systems, they got them. Their order said nothing about Apple not being able to charge a commission.

    pwrmac said:
    Good luck ACM! What are they going to say now. Apple is not allowed to charge for use of their platform. There is not something like a free ride in this world :-)
    If Apple wants to insist on these fees, the regulators should just go for the sideloading angle instead.

    They can't charge a commission when they aren't the ones selling the product.
    And how’s that working out for Google? From what I read the vast, vast, majority of Android users stick with the Google Play Store. Even with third party app stores Google is still being attacked for its commissions policy. So even though users can go to other app stores they still use Google Play and willingly pay the 30% commission.

    So who are the sots that are always clamoring for all this fake ‘freedom’?
    Well said. And it is absolutely true that majority of the users prefer Google Play Store and won't sideload apps from unofficial sources even if the app is not available in Google Play Store. The app developers will have to make their app available in Apple App Store/Google Play Store IF they want to reach larger audience. Period.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    The subhead is wrong, misleading, and damaging. It should not be “ Apple said it would still require developers to pay a 27% commission for using a third-party payment system.” It should be “[…]when using a third-party payment system.”  The fee isn’t for using third-party payment; it is for using all of the APIs and underlying IP that Apple created to support developers. 
    radarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    From another report:

    "When asked by Reuters, a spokesperson for the ACM said the agency “could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order.”

    “ACM is disappointed in Apple’s behaviour and actions,” it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple’s behaviour violated competition law.

    The ACM will fine Apple for a maximum of 10 weeks, for a total fine of 50 million euros. It’s unclear what its next steps would be, but this does give Apple around seven more weeks to address the ACM’s concerns. The ACM has said that Apple must actually launch the option for developers of dating applications in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems in order to be in compliance with the ruling.

    The ACM has also taken issue with Apple’s plans to force developers to choose between linking to an external payment system or using an alternative in-app payment system. Regulators say that Apple must allow developers to do both of these things, not just one.

  • Reply 9 of 17
    jab3rd said:
    The subhead is wrong, misleading, and damaging. It should not be “ Apple said it would still require developers to pay a 27% commission for using a third-party payment system.” It should be “[…]when using a third-party payment system.”  The fee isn’t for using third-party payment; it is for using all of the APIs and underlying IP that Apple created to support developers. 
    Right, and if they can’t charge a flat commission then they should start charging by actual usage. Separate fees billed monthly for: developer program access, licensing fee for using Apple’s APIs, hosting in the App Store, bandwidth, credit card processing (if billed thru Apple), customer support, etc. 

    I wonder how fast people would want to go back to the flat fee. I guarantee charging for actual use would end up costing way more than 27/30% for a lot of developers. Especially the big companies that are the loudest complainers.
    edited February 7 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 17
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,643member
    pwrmac said:
    Good luck ACM! What are they going to say now. Apple is not allowed to charge for use of their platform. There is not something like a free ride in this world :-)
    If Apple wants to insist on these fees, the regulators should just go for the sideloading angle instead.

    They can't charge a commission when they aren't the ones selling the product.
    But Apple is not the one selling the apps now and they can still charge developers a commission for using Apple IP (along with accessing highly sought after Apple customer base)  in order to sell their app, using the Apple App Store. The developers are allowed too charge what they have to, in order to be profitable. And if Google Android users are of any indication, well over 90% of the users are happy with that arrangement. Even though Android allows third party app stores and side loading. 

    It's not like the "wholesale" model retailers like Walmart uses. There the retailer buys the product from the product maker, at a reduced (wholesale) price and then sell the product at a marked up price, in their stores. 
       
    So even if Apple modified iOS so that there's side loading, how are the developers going to side load their apps into iOS, without depending on Apple IP in iOS? iOS is Apple copyright/patented work, not "public domain" nor "open source", though the EU want to make it so, with their BS "gatekeeper" laws.   

    Quit thinking that Apple commission is only for processing the payment. Don't think like that idiot Sweeney in his epic losing lawsuit against Apple. Think like the US Federal Judge in the case, that stated that Apple has the right to be compensated for the commercial use of their IP. And then went ahead and awarded Apple their full 30% commission in damages, for money Epic made from payments in their modified Fortnite app, but outside of iTunes. This very same Judge that ruled that Apple was being anti-competitive by not allowing developers to use their own or a third party payment system, for the sales of their apps.       
    radarthekatDetnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 17
    rezwitsrezwits Posts: 829member

    The problem is the EU, and it's "subsidiaries" i.e. countries have found an avenue to just $FINE Apple willy nilly and nit pick.  Until Apple just says ok no more money for us with our App Store, you get all the downloads for free, and developers just pay $100 a year.

    I don't know how many of you are board game people or just people that understand this simple fact:

    There are two types of people, that when purchasing something they REALLY want, they have two different attitudes:

    1st attitude is:  I am buying this and I don't mind the extra price because I want to support THE COMPANY(S) that are making this.

    2nd attitude is:  I am buying this but SCREW such and such COMPANY(S), I don't want them making a dime off from it.

    Like for instance, a long time ago, people could go to their gaming store and buy a board game.

    Now people cut the middle men out and some are happy to.  While some feel bad for the PHYSICAL store going out of business.  You could say this is pity (and oh pity Apple), and others would say screw them.  But here is the deal if we could cut Amazon out some how and have the same LOW LOW prices and instant shipping we would cut them out, but we really can't.  Because they are cutting the other middle men down to the lowest common denominators.

    Apple is at it's lowest form too (and being able to make money), but to use Amazon you're not using their device to necessarily make the purchase, where as on a Apple Device that's THEIR TECH, their IP, their CODE.

    I honestly say we should just abandon the EU and let them live with just Android and Windows.  Like a FULL 100% pull out.

    edited February 8 watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 17
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,643member
    gatorguy said:
    From another report:

    "When asked by Reuters, a spokesperson for the ACM said the agency “could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order.”

    “ACM is disappointed in Apple’s behaviour and actions,” it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple’s behaviour violated competition law.

    The ACM will fine Apple for a maximum of 10 weeks, for a total fine of 50 million euros. It’s unclear what its next steps would be, but this does give Apple around seven more weeks to address the ACM’s concerns. The ACM has said that Apple must actually launch the option for developers of dating applications in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems in order to be in compliance with the ruling.

    The ACM has also taken issue with Apple’s plans to force developers to choose between linking to an external payment system or using an alternative in-app payment system. Regulators say that Apple must allow developers to do both of these things, not just one.

    Your cut and paste of the  Reuter article is nothing but short of deceiving.

    The ACM is not disappointed that Apple is going to be charging a 27% commission on payments made outside of iTunes. The ACM is disappointed that Apple has not yet implemented their plan to allow developers to use their own or a third party payment system. Apple has only so far posted their plan to be in compliance. So there's no clear cut way for the ACM to determine if Apple plan is in compliance.

    It's now over 3 weeks after the deadline, thus the 3 weeks of fines. This is the behavior that the ACM is disappointed with. And the "behavior" the Dutch Court ruled that violated anti-competition was Apple requiring dating apps to use Apple own iTunes payment system. They have not yet reviewed or commented on whether the 27% commission is with-in compliance of their original demands. But with your cut and paste, you make it seem as though the ACM was disappointed and concern that Apple is still going to be charging a 27% commission on payments not using iTunes and the Dutch Courts has ruled that it violated competition laws.

    I know you're not stupid, so you must be purposely trying to deceive with this post. You're are just proving what many here already suspect ... you are a closet "Apple Hater" who tries to make it seem that you are unbiased with your comments about Apple, Inc.. 

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-antitrust-watchdog-studying-whether-apple-has-now-complied-with-order-2022-02-07/

    Here's a more balanced article about what is transpiring with Apple and the ACM by tech blogger John Gruber. 

    https://daringfireball.net/2022/02/going_dutch

    Here's the original summary of the Dutch Court findings against Apple. 

    https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/summary-of-decision-on-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-apple.pdf

    Notice no mention of Apple commission or that the commission is anti-competitive. Apple now 27% for dating apps in the Netherland, should have no bearing on whether Apple plan is going to be in compliance, unless the EU Commission and ACM moves the goal post. 




    edited February 8 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    From another report:

    "When asked by Reuters, a spokesperson for the ACM said the agency “could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order.”

    “ACM is disappointed in Apple’s behaviour and actions,” it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple’s behaviour violated competition law.

    The ACM will fine Apple for a maximum of 10 weeks, for a total fine of 50 million euros. It’s unclear what its next steps would be, but this does give Apple around seven more weeks to address the ACM’s concerns. The ACM has said that Apple must actually launch the option for developers of dating applications in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems in order to be in compliance with the ruling.

    The ACM has also taken issue with Apple’s plans to force developers to choose between linking to an external payment system or using an alternative in-app payment system. Regulators say that Apple must allow developers to do both of these things, not just one.

    Your cut and paste of the  Reuter article is nothing but short of deceiving.

    The ACM is not disappointed that Apple is going to be charging a 27% commission on payments made outside of iTunes. The ACM is disappointed that Apple has not yet implemented their plan to allow developers to use their own or a third party payment system. Apple has only so far posted their plan to be in compliance. So there's no clear cut way for the ACM to determine if Apple plan is in compliance.

    It's now over 3 weeks after the deadline, thus the 3 weeks of fines. This is the behavior that the ACM is disappointed with. And the "behavior" the Dutch Court ruled that violated anti-competition was Apple requiring dating apps to use Apple own iTunes payment system. They have not yet reviewed or commented on whether the 27% commission is with-in compliance of their original demands. But with your cut and paste, you make it seem as though the ACM was disappointed and concern that Apple is still going to be charging a 27% commission on payments not using iTunes and the Dutch Courts has ruled that it violated competition laws.

    I know you're not stupid, so you must be purposely trying to deceive with this post. You're are just proving what many here already suspect ... you are a closet "Apple Hater" who tries to make it seem that you are unbiased with your comments about Apple, Inc.. 

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-antitrust-watchdog-studying-whether-apple-has-now-complied-with-order-2022-02-07/

    Here's a more balanced article about what is transpiring with Apple and the ACM by tech blogger John Gruber. 

    https://daringfireball.net/2022/02/going_dutch

    Here's the original summary of the Dutch Court findings against Apple. 

    https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/summary-of-decision-on-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-apple.pdf

    Notice no mention of Apple commission or that the commission is anti-competitive. Apple now 27% for dating apps in the Netherland, should have no bearing on whether Apple plan is going to be in compliance, unless the EU Commission and ACM moves the goal post. 




    It was copied verbatim from another report at an Apple-enthusiast blog
    https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/07/apple-app-store-fine-shocking/
    It was not edited in any way. I haven't seen a Reuters article but will make a point of looking for it now. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, and certainly not so quick to accuse another long-term member of purposeful deception.


    edited February 8 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 17
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    The good news is, they can now charge all the other developers who steered sales off-platform the same 27%. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 17
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    From another report:

    "When asked by Reuters, a spokesperson for the ACM said the agency “could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order.”

    “ACM is disappointed in Apple’s behaviour and actions,” it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple’s behaviour violated competition law.

    The ACM will fine Apple for a maximum of 10 weeks, for a total fine of 50 million euros. It’s unclear what its next steps would be, but this does give Apple around seven more weeks to address the ACM’s concerns. The ACM has said that Apple must actually launch the option for developers of dating applications in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems in order to be in compliance with the ruling.

    The ACM has also taken issue with Apple’s plans to force developers to choose between linking to an external payment system or using an alternative in-app payment system. Regulators say that Apple must allow developers to do both of these things, not just one.

    Your cut and paste of the  Reuter article is nothing but short of deceiving.

    The ACM is not disappointed that Apple is going to be charging a 27% commission on payments made outside of iTunes. The ACM is disappointed that Apple has not yet implemented their plan to allow developers to use their own or a third party payment system. Apple has only so far posted their plan to be in compliance. So there's no clear cut way for the ACM to determine if Apple plan is in compliance.

    It's now over 3 weeks after the deadline, thus the 3 weeks of fines. This is the behavior that the ACM is disappointed with. And the "behavior" the Dutch Court ruled that violated anti-competition was Apple requiring dating apps to use Apple own iTunes payment system. They have not yet reviewed or commented on whether the 27% commission is with-in compliance of their original demands. But with your cut and paste, you make it seem as though the ACM was disappointed and concern that Apple is still going to be charging a 27% commission on payments not using iTunes and the Dutch Courts has ruled that it violated competition laws.

    I know you're not stupid, so you must be purposely trying to deceive with this post. You're are just proving what many here already suspect ... you are a closet "Apple Hater" who tries to make it seem that you are unbiased with your comments about Apple, Inc.. 

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-antitrust-watchdog-studying-whether-apple-has-now-complied-with-order-2022-02-07/

    Here's a more balanced article about what is transpiring with Apple and the ACM by tech blogger John Gruber. 

    https://daringfireball.net/2022/02/going_dutch

    Here's the original summary of the Dutch Court findings against Apple. 

    https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/summary-of-decision-on-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-apple.pdf

    Notice no mention of Apple commission or that the commission is anti-competitive. Apple now 27% for dating apps in the Netherland, should have no bearing on whether Apple plan is going to be in compliance, unless the EU Commission and ACM moves the goal post. 

    Is there a precedent to this? Do other retailers get forced to allow customers to use supplier-nominated payment processors for their goods & services? If not, it’s total discrimination.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 17
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,643member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    From another report:

    "When asked by Reuters, a spokesperson for the ACM said the agency “could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order.”

    “ACM is disappointed in Apple’s behaviour and actions,” it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple’s behaviour violated competition law.

    The ACM will fine Apple for a maximum of 10 weeks, for a total fine of 50 million euros. It’s unclear what its next steps would be, but this does give Apple around seven more weeks to address the ACM’s concerns. The ACM has said that Apple must actually launch the option for developers of dating applications in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems in order to be in compliance with the ruling.

    The ACM has also taken issue with Apple’s plans to force developers to choose between linking to an external payment system or using an alternative in-app payment system. Regulators say that Apple must allow developers to do both of these things, not just one.

    Your cut and paste of the  Reuter article is nothing but short of deceiving.

    The ACM is not disappointed that Apple is going to be charging a 27% commission on payments made outside of iTunes. The ACM is disappointed that Apple has not yet implemented their plan to allow developers to use their own or a third party payment system. Apple has only so far posted their plan to be in compliance. So there's no clear cut way for the ACM to determine if Apple plan is in compliance.

    It's now over 3 weeks after the deadline, thus the 3 weeks of fines. This is the behavior that the ACM is disappointed with. And the "behavior" the Dutch Court ruled that violated anti-competition was Apple requiring dating apps to use Apple own iTunes payment system. They have not yet reviewed or commented on whether the 27% commission is with-in compliance of their original demands. But with your cut and paste, you make it seem as though the ACM was disappointed and concern that Apple is still going to be charging a 27% commission on payments not using iTunes and the Dutch Courts has ruled that it violated competition laws.

    I know you're not stupid, so you must be purposely trying to deceive with this post. You're are just proving what many here already suspect ... you are a closet "Apple Hater" who tries to make it seem that you are unbiased with your comments about Apple, Inc.. 

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-antitrust-watchdog-studying-whether-apple-has-now-complied-with-order-2022-02-07/

    Here's a more balanced article about what is transpiring with Apple and the ACM by tech blogger John Gruber. 

    https://daringfireball.net/2022/02/going_dutch

    Here's the original summary of the Dutch Court findings against Apple. 

    https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/summary-of-decision-on-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-apple.pdf

    Notice no mention of Apple commission or that the commission is anti-competitive. Apple now 27% for dating apps in the Netherland, should have no bearing on whether Apple plan is going to be in compliance, unless the EU Commission and ACM moves the goal post. 




    It was copied verbatim from another report at an Apple-enthusiast blog
    https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/07/apple-app-store-fine-shocking/
    It was not edited in any way. I haven't seen a Reuters article but will make a point of looking for it now. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, and certainly not so quick to accuse another long-term member of purposeful deception.


    But that is not where you stated those quotes came from, you stated that they came from a Reuter article. You did not link the 9to5mac article or even mentioned it.  And the Reuter article I linked was the source of those two quotes. (The link is also in this AI article) If you were to read the Reuter article, you will find out that your first quote was more like a "footnote" to what the article was really about. Most likely because they didn't know about the 27% commission until after the article was already written.

    The second quote was pertaining to what the article was addressing, the fact that Apple is still not in compliance because they have not yet implemented their plan to be in compliance. The ACM deadline was over 3 weeks ago. ACM do, as worded, have some concerns and issues with Apple plan to be in compliance, but they can't determine if Apple plan is in compliance or not, until the developers can use it. Thus their frustration with Apple and the fines for not yet implementing their plan and thus not being in  compliance. So far the fines for non-compliance has nothing to do with Apple their 27% commission or for any other issues that the ACM is concern about, with Apple plan to be in compliance. 

    The third part of your post is accurate but did not come from the Reuter article that contained the first two quotes. 

    Reading the first two quotes in your post (and the 9to5mac article) gives a completely different impression, than reading them in the actual Reuter article they came from. Don't you think? The way the quotes are used in your post and the 9to5mac article, paints the impression that the second quote was related to the first. And that the Apple behavior and action the ACM was disappointed with, was Apple revealing that they are going to be charging a 27% commission for payments outside of iTunes. 

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-antitrust-watchdog-studying-whether-apple-has-now-complied-with-order-2022-02-07/

    Even if you didn't mean it, the way the quotes were presented in your post was deceiving. As they were in the 9to5Mac article.  

    BTW- That 9to5mac article is more poorly written than this one in AI. Both seem to be hell bent on implying that the ACM is fining Apple for planning to charge a 27% commission on payments done outside of iTunes. 

    Here's John Gruber more rational take on the commission.

    https://daringfireball.net/2022/02/going_dutch

    >"It’s obvious many developers wrongly assumed that Apple’s commissions were for payment processing alone. Were regulators like the Dutch ACM similarly wrong? Is the point of the ACM’s ruling merely that dating apps should have the option of processing payments however they choose, while paying the same effective commission to Apple? Or was their intention to provide dating apps the option to process payments on their own to avoid Apple’s commission? I know a lot of people reading this are going to think “Of course their intention was to allow developers to avoid Apple’s commission!” They feel so strongly against Apple’s App Store commission that even their thoughts have exclamation marks. But give the ACM’s rulinga close read — they don’t make that argument at all."<



    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    From another report:

    "When asked by Reuters, a spokesperson for the ACM said the agency “could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order.”

    “ACM is disappointed in Apple’s behaviour and actions,” it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple’s behaviour violated competition law.

    The ACM will fine Apple for a maximum of 10 weeks, for a total fine of 50 million euros. It’s unclear what its next steps would be, but this does give Apple around seven more weeks to address the ACM’s concerns. The ACM has said that Apple must actually launch the option for developers of dating applications in the Netherlands to use alternative payment systems in order to be in compliance with the ruling.

    The ACM has also taken issue with Apple’s plans to force developers to choose between linking to an external payment system or using an alternative in-app payment system. Regulators say that Apple must allow developers to do both of these things, not just one.

    Your cut and paste of the  Reuter article is nothing but short of deceiving.

    The ACM is not disappointed that Apple is going to be charging a 27% commission on payments made outside of iTunes. The ACM is disappointed that Apple has not yet implemented their plan to allow developers to use their own or a third party payment system. Apple has only so far posted their plan to be in compliance. So there's no clear cut way for the ACM to determine if Apple plan is in compliance.

    It's now over 3 weeks after the deadline, thus the 3 weeks of fines. This is the behavior that the ACM is disappointed with. And the "behavior" the Dutch Court ruled that violated anti-competition was Apple requiring dating apps to use Apple own iTunes payment system. They have not yet reviewed or commented on whether the 27% commission is with-in compliance of their original demands. But with your cut and paste, you make it seem as though the ACM was disappointed and concern that Apple is still going to be charging a 27% commission on payments not using iTunes and the Dutch Courts has ruled that it violated competition laws.

    I know you're not stupid, so you must be purposely trying to deceive with this post. You're are just proving what many here already suspect ... you are a closet "Apple Hater" who tries to make it seem that you are unbiased with your comments about Apple, Inc.. 

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-antitrust-watchdog-studying-whether-apple-has-now-complied-with-order-2022-02-07/

    Here's a more balanced article about what is transpiring with Apple and the ACM by tech blogger John Gruber. 

    https://daringfireball.net/2022/02/going_dutch

    Here's the original summary of the Dutch Court findings against Apple. 

    https://www.acm.nl/sites/default/files/documents/summary-of-decision-on-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-apple.pdf

    Notice no mention of Apple commission or that the commission is anti-competitive. Apple now 27% for dating apps in the Netherland, should have no bearing on whether Apple plan is going to be in compliance, unless the EU Commission and ACM moves the goal post. 




    It was copied verbatim from another report at an Apple-enthusiast blog
    https://9to5mac.com/2022/02/07/apple-app-store-fine-shocking/
    It was not edited in any way. I haven't seen a Reuters article but will make a point of looking for it now. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, and certainly not so quick to accuse another long-term member of purposeful deception.


    But that is not where you stated those quotes came from, you stated that they came from a Reuter article.
    No, I never said the text came from Reuter's. I simply said "from another report". There was no reason to question the factual accuracy of it at the time since it was written at another Apple enthusiast blog. But anyway, thank you for the almost-apology. Close enough.
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.