[email protected]

swat671 said:

[email protected] said:

Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
Those that are already there become stronger.

So, what? No regulations at all?

There will be regulations whether we like it or not. We can hope some will be more good than bad. (I'm not counting on it)
I'm just floating the idea that those that think more regulation will make Big Tech less powerful might be disappointed with the results.

aderutter said:

I’m thinking Apple should just ban dating apps in the Netherlands.

That would be anti-competitive.
They would have to ban dating apps everywhere.

Regulation tends to benefit the big players, those that can afford to pay for a chief compliance officer and staff.
Regulation makes the price of entry into a market higher.
Those that are already there become stronger.

GeorgeBMac said:

[email protected] said:

avon b7 said:

[email protected] said:

avon b7 said:

RudolfGottfried said:

avon b7 said:

RudolfGottfried said:

saarek said:

rob53 said:

When I go into any store I have one choice for payment--what the store has to offer. I have no ability to use a third-party payment system to pay for my groceries, household items or anything else. How is the Apple App Store any different? I go to this store and use their payment system. How difficult is it to understand? 

As for specifying dating apps, ?????????? Why are they special? Is the Dutch government trying to make sure Apple doesn't know who's actually using their App Store and apps? I guess it's time to go after Costco and other membership stores along with every grocery store forcing them to allow me to walk into their store, pick up an item, and tell them I'm using an outside payment system. Of course they'll let me walk out the door. /s Yea, right into a police car on its way to jail. I know all of this is being done because governments want to dictate anything they can while not telling anyone how much in bribes they're getting.

I suppose the difference is that you could just go to an alternate store to buy your groceries.

But with the iPhone you don’t have that choice.

Yes, you were aware of that before you bought your iPhone. But ultimately it comes down to choice. If you want an iPhone you have to accept that you have no choice, it’s Apple App Store with exorbitant fees or the highway.

Apple makes 35-45% mark up on every phone they sell. The 30% markup on the App Store isn’t really justifiable and we all know it.

Yes, there are benefits to the end user to being locked down to one App Store. But Apple is blowing their chance of keeping iOS apps locked down by their greed. And yes, it is greed. Most companies either make money on the hardware sale or hope to make it up via the software. Apple makes eye watering profits on the hardware and then takes 30% for all software sales. Sadly that’s Tim Cook for you though, he’s obsessed with profits over everything else.

This is complete nonsense. Apple's hardware profit margin is between 25% and 38%, which is perfectly normal for a hardware-focused company. The 30% respectively 15% commission in the App Store is also completely normal if you look at other providers and also consider that this does not only include the pure costs for servers and payment processing, but also costs that arise from recourse and complaint handling, which Apple takes over completely for the developers. Furthermore, this fee also includes intangible values such as trust and security.
Anyone who claims that simple greed is the main driving force behind Apple or Tim Cook has no idea about the subject. And usually comes instead up with inappropriate analogies.

How many malls do you have to pay to enter? 

There is an obvious problem with the mall analogy and that's why it fails.

Once you purchase an iPhone or iPad (gaining access to that mall in the process) your only 'mall' is the 'Apple mall' but there are no stores competing with each other. No. There is only really one store, which not only doesn't have any competition, but also decides for you what you have access to purchase.

On top of that, no purchaser of iDevices is ever clearly made aware of these limitations. 

In fact, that is where I believe Apple could run into problems in the EU.

It's not that the current setup couldn't survive scrutiny but that it might end up being necessary to make purchasers sign acceptance of Apple's control, for it to continue. 

We'll see. 

Dude, seriously? There is no competition in Apple's app store? In what parallel universe?
And as for your mall statements, have you ever seen a sign there that said: "Dear competitor, would you like to place your mall in my mall? No problem, I will provide you with enough space, electricity and water. I will advertise for you and take care of your security. And in the evening I will clean up your mess. Everything for free!"?
Or in the individual stores signs like: "You get this product much cheaper five blocks away." or "Take what you want and pay for it somewhere else."?
And for the fact that you have to pay individually in each store of a mall, the store owners pay a fee to the mall owner. It's called RENT.

There is only one on device store. The App Store. Competition for it is not allowed by Apple. 

There is the internet and web apps. (Apple does bring that up regularly).

That will suck, a little or a lot depending in the kind of app, but that is the alternative.
Why do apps suck less than the internet?
Because Apple worked and works to make it suck less, for which they want to be paid if you benefit from it.
If you think it's too expensive and can't afford it, don't buy it.

The availability of Web Apps in no way changes anything. 

There is only one, on device app store and therefore no competition. 

Buying into an alternative platform is a valid option but if you've already bought into an iDevice, unaware of the finer details Apple's control, it is a little too late. 

And no one is clearly spelling out the limitations to buyers at purchase time. 

This has nothing to do with buyers.
This is entirely about big developers who make more than a million a year who find Apple's business model gets in the way of their own business model.

The buyers benefit greatly from Apple's business model, they get a store where more than 85% of the apps are free.
Apple pays for this by taxing the developers that make lots of money.
Those that make lots of money don't want to pay their taxes. They don't want to subsidize free apps, some might even be competitors. And because they make lots of money they have staff that can do the bit of promotion and customer relations that Apple does for them a lot better than Apple can, so they don't want to pay for that either.
App review and privacy are just things that get in their way, so they don't want to pay Apple for that either.

Yep!  Follow the money...

And, I am still curious why this only applies to dating apps?  I suspect it may be the prostitution industry (which is legal there) behind all of it.

Dating app Tinder complained to the Authority for Consumers and Competition that their business model does not work with Apple's terms and conditions.
This applies to other dating apps too, so they made it about dating apps not Tinder. Apple says the terms exist for technical reasons and protection of their customers.
The judge didn't buy that because the terms don't apply when selling physical goods or videos, so why not dating apps?

So, the business model of dating apps is incompatible with Apple's terms, and that is not fair.
And it is Apple's fault because Apple is powerful.
Or something.

Is Apple allowed to decide who pays and who doesn't is something the regulators and lawmakers need to figure out.
Or maybe not. Maybe they are just under pressure to be seen to be doing something about the "Big Tech Is Too Powerful!" problem.
Whether what they propose or do is dumb or smart is secondary.

I can see the bigger issue going in a direction that makes everything worse for everybody.

Not so long ago Microsoft had a go trying to be a third mobile platform. They even bought Nokia to make it happen.
They know tech and had a more than decent OS, and they failed.
If Microsoft and Nokia together can not manage to be a competitor who can?

Forcing Apple and Google to make their products worse is going to make competition happen?