davidw

chasm said:

As others have said, since the fine has a limit, I think Apple has decided that it is worth the money to buy time and send a message that they don't give a shit what the regulator thinks. It's not that Apple won't comply with its interpretation of the law -- by the regulator's own admission Apple has put forward at least two serious proposals and has implemented the option of third-party processing. But asking them to set this up within a month of the first ruling was a joke and the regulator knows that.

I'm sure the company is weighing up their legal options. Since I don't know Netherlands law, I can't comment on whether Apple has the option to take that path -- but it should be on the regulator to explain:

a) why 27 percent is not different than 30 percent minus the cost of payment processing. Apple would **LOVE** a chance to explain in detail everything they do for developers in court -- remember, a US court has already ruled that Apple is still entitled to commission for sales out of the App Store. So far, all the regulator has said about it is that their arbitrary opinion is that it's not enough -- no explanation at all of why or what figure it thinks would be right, and why.

b) why the "web apps" route -- which has always been available to developers -- isn't a perfectly valid option. Since Apple openly offers that option, I concur with that part of their interpretation of the law: when it comes to offering at least one alternative, they have always done so.

c) why Apple shouldn't just withdraw dating apps from the App Store outright, FORCING developers to create their own stores and payment systems, and

d) What Holland will do to ensure that no app, developer, or third-party payment system is in any violation of any Duth laws or regulations, since the responsibility for keeping dating apps safe will now fall to them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

As for a)

As far as the ACM is concern, Apple commission has nothing to do with Apple not being in compliance. The main issue is that Apple is only allowing the dating app developers only one of the choices of payment in their app. The developer can either choose iTunes or their own payment system or a link to their website. ACM is demanding that Apple allow dating app developers a choice to use at least their own payment system and a link. Not a choice of one or the other, in their app. And maybe even allowing them to also use iTunes, as a choice. The original court order did not make any mention of Apple's commission. 

Apple believe they are in compliance because they are allowing dating app developers the choice of their own payment system or a link to their website. 

This is the original wording in the court order.  

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


https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22917514/apple-netherlands-dating-apps-external-payment-processors-in-app-commission-acm

>Under Apple’s proposed policies, which were detailed in early February, dating app developers using alternative payment systems are charged a 27 percent commissionby Apple, a small discount on the 30 percent commission it takes when developers use Apple’s own in-app payment system. Developers who want to use alternative payment systems will need to provide a separate app binary to be distributed via the Dutch App Store. The ACM’s ruling follows a complaint from Match Group (owners of Tinder and other dating services), Reuterspreviously reported.

Interestingly, the ACM’s notice posted today doesn’t specifically mention Apple’s intention to collect a 27 percent commission on in-app payments made through alternative payment systems. <

Here's John Gruber take on it.


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

>On January 24 — 11 days prior to Apple’s publication of these updated guidelines — the ACM issued this:

In addition, Apple has raised several barriers for dating-app providers to the use of third-party payment systems. That, too, is at odds with ACM’s requirements. For example, Apple seemingly forces app providers to make a choice: either refer to payment systems outside of the app or to an alternative payment system. That is not allowed. Providers must be able to choose both options.

Apple’s new guidelines state, in the very first paragraph (emphasis added):

To comply with an order from the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), Apple allows developers distributing dating apps on the Netherlands App Store to choose to do one of the following: 1) continue using Apple’s in-app purchase system, 2) use a third-party payment system within the app, or 3) include an in-app link directing users to the developer’s website to complete a purchase.

Neither the ACM ruling nor Apple’s updated guidelines seem ambiguous here, but clearly Apple’s guidelines don’t comply with “Providers must be able to choose both options.”<

So far, Apple has not changed their policy concerning dating app developers choices of payment system in their app. That is the reason why AMC is continuing to fine Apple for not being in compliance.

Plus John Gruber take on the commission in the same article. 

>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 ruling a close read — they don’t make that argument at all.<

As for b)

This the original court order outlining why the ACM thinks "Web App" is not suitable for dating apps. From the same link as above.

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

>6. This decision concerns dating-app providers that offer apps in the App Store. For these providers, offering an app is critical since consumers use dating services primarily on their smart mobile devices, and consumers prefer using apps: apps are appealing because, in that way, several functionalities specific to smart mobile devices can be used that are available in apps, but that are not available (or available to a lesser degree) on mobile websites. For example, think of push notifications, data storage, GPS, the speed of the service. For dating app, this is very important.<

John Gruber goes into more detail about this in his  "Daring Fireball" article . (linked above)

IMO- It appears that the ACM acknowledges that Apple IP do provide dating app developers some valuable services. And therefore, Apple should not have to provide these services for free, thus no mention of Apple commission in their court order. Or any mention (so far) of Apple continuing to collect a commission, as a (or one of the) reason why Apple in not in compliance.     

chadbag said:

Actually the "stem player" sound interesting.   Not because I want to listen to his music (I lost definitely don't) but if they can get all the large libraries on board to sell their tracks on it and actually support its features on all their music it could be a great device.  Specifically the "stem" feature that lets you isolate tracks at the push of a button.  Pushing a button to get an isolated guitar or bass or drums or synth part would be awesome for people learning a song.  There used to be a software package that sold songs that had all tracks isolated (and would notate the song on screen).  This is a spiritual follow on and could be awesome.

If this "stem player" can also isolate and eliminate tracks from being heard (at the push of a button), then the "stem player" might be the best way to listen to West "music", by isolating and eliminating the vocal track.

Xed said:

NinjaMan said:

Xed said:

NinjaMan said:

Xed said:

NinjaMan said:

Xed said:

F_Kent_D said:

foregoneconclusion said:

This is the same Texas state government that has made drastic changes to voting laws to try and reduce the number of citizens that can successfully cast a vote in the state.

Based on your inaccurate comment it doesn’t seem to me you live in Texas. I’ve lived in Texas for my 43 years and the government has never tried to reduce the amount of people that can vote. We actually have opened early voting for extended periods of time, more than most states by a lot, and the state allows anyone to cast a provisional ballot that if needed any government issued or even a school issued ID is sufficient. You cannot tell me that even thou you’re required to have an ID to lease an apartment or any housing but it’s not okay to require that same ID to cast a ballot for an election. You’ve been fed wrong information watching CNN and reading The Washington Compost

Someone needs to read more about their state laws. FB and Qanon groups aren't cutting it.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/politics/what-texas-voting-bill-does/index.html

Oops. I linked to article from CNN. I guess that means it's automatically all "fake news". ߙ䦬t;/div>

How is structuring an accountable voting system to limit fraudulent votes reducing the number of citizens who can successfully vote? There's absolutely nothing in that article that demonstrates a blocking in someone's ability to vote - does removing 24hr voting inconvenience some, maybe, but 6am to 10pm still gives you 16 out of 24hrs to cast a vote so it's not impossible - people can go before work or afterwork regardless of their shift. Texas actually has a State law in place that says employers are NOT allowed to prevent an employee from voting: https://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/voting_time_off.html so exactly how are people are the number of citizens being reduce? 

You're asking how creating voter laws that are purposely designed to restrict the votes of minorities could possibly reduce their ability to vote? If that's a head scratcher to you then maybe you shouldn't vote.

PS: Next time why don't you bring up how gerrymandering is perfectly fine so long as it benefits your party.

How are these changes specifically targeting minorities? How are white people immune to any impact of these changes? Please list out where these changes are minority impacting only - I'll wait, but please don't attempt to list anything that's related to socioeconomics because those same factors effect white people as well…

If you were sincere you would be able to do your own research for the exact question you asked.

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Nothing is preventing people from getting IDs, period. If someone doesn't have an ID it's not because their race held them back, it was a choice not to...sorry, but I have no issue with requiring IDs to vote otherwise what prevent someone from going in and voting as multiple people, including people who have passed, which was found to be an actual problem. If there were legit laws or anything else that specifically stopped minorities from obtaining IDs I would 100% support that these voting law changes are racists, but not having one is a choice…

And my grandfather could also buy a house if he wanted… he just didn't have an option for a GI Bill after the war, he was redlined to live in most neighborhoods, and would both get the price raised on him for buying and lowered for selling? I suppose you also think that's all fair because if you jump through all the right hoops in all the right way you are technically allowed to do something. I love how privileged bigots think that because there is a goal that it makes it obtainable even while they keep putting more and more obstacles in the way of an already uneven playing field.

24 voting gone… and it's just a coincidence it's mostly used by black and Latino voters.
Drive-thru voting gone… and it's just a coincidence it's mostly used by black and Latino voters.
A change on which IDs are valid…  and it's just a coincidence it's removes ones used by black and latino voters.

It's all just a big coincidence.z

Voting in this country is suppose to be a right, but you frame it as a privilege with extra steps when you say that an octogenarian who is on a fixed budget and needs oxygen to survive needs to find a way and the time to get down to the DMV to get an updated license just to be able to vote because their expired one will keep them from voting is just keep racism alive and well in the US without calling it by that name. Either you fully onboard or just ignorant, but you are complicit.

In nearly every State, in order to exercise ones right to vote, one must first register to vote. And guess what one needs when registering to vote .... some form of ID. Preferably a photo ID. Are you also going to cry out "racist" for that too? (ND do not require registration to vote but must present a valid ID when voting.)

About 50% of the people that votes, now vote by mail. Voting by mail have been increasing every year for over a decade and significantly increased during the pandemic. There's no indication that it will decrease in the years ahead. The polling place is not the only way for one to exercise their right to vote. Every State offers some form of absentee ballot. No need to show an ID to fill out your ballot. No need to find a "drive thru". No need for 24 drop boxes. No need to even leave your home as the ballot is mailed to you and there is no checking for ID when placing your mail-in ballot in the USPS mail box, so anyone can mail it for you.

The ID required at the polling place is not implemented to prevent one from casting their own vote, it implemented to prevent one from voting more than once while using some one else's name.  

If Blacks and Latinos are more affected by requiring ID at the polling place because they have a more difficult time obtaining ID, then steps should be taken to ensure that Blacks and Latinos can more easily obtain an ID. Not stop requiring ID at the polling place or when registering to vote. It is much easier to go through life without ever having to vote, than it is to go through life without having some form of valid ID. Only about 60% of eligible voters vote. And not in all elections. Not requiring ID at the polling place because Black and Latinos have a more difficult time obtaining an ID, is not the solution to the real problem of why do Blacks and Latinos have a more difficult time obtaining an ID.   

StrangeDays said:

F_Kent_D said:

foregoneconclusion said:

This is the same Texas state government that has made drastic changes to voting laws to try and reduce the number of citizens that can successfully cast a vote in the state.

Based on your inaccurate comment it doesn’t seem to me you live in Texas. I’ve lived in Texas for my 43 years and the government has never tried to reduce the amount of people that can vote. We actually have opened early voting for extended periods of time, more than most states by a lot, and the state allows anyone to cast a provisional ballot that if needed any government issued or even a school issued ID is sufficient. You cannot tell me that even thou you’re required to have an ID to lease an apartment or any housing but it’s not okay to require that same ID to cast a ballot for an election. You’ve been fed wrong information watching CNN and reading The Washington Compost

Incorrect. Voting is a right, renting an apartment isn't -- thus it's unconstitutional to require ID which require fees, time off from work for all-day commitments at the DMV, owning a vehicle, etc. Most of the western world has figured this out -- voter registration is automatic.

Texas's incompetent governor Abbot removed ballot drop-off boxes in heavily populated, Democrat-voting districts. This is 100% gaming the system. That's how the GOP rolls and it's not even a secret.

As for relevant location, I’m in the state right next to TX and follow its news. My state housed refugees from TX when its power grid failed because it was cold out, while the state’s senator fled to Mexico then blamed it on his kids.

Not taking sides with TX voting bills one way of another but ........ 

owning a firearm is a right, so it is unconstitutional to require ID to buy a gun (legally) in the US? Why isn't gun ownership automatic, if it's a right? 

EVERY right is and can be "regulated". Even ones right to free speech has limitations imposed on it, by the government.  

The Constitutional right to vote is no more free of government regulations, than the Constitutional right to own a firearm. Both can be regulated by the government.   

For example, get convicted for a felony and in nearly every State, one loses the right to vote, (at least while incarcerated), as they would also lose the right to legally own a firearm, for the rest of their life. ( A handful of States do restore right to own a firearm, if conviction was for a non-violent felony.)  

tommikele said:

tht said:

So, uh, the fund bought AAPL in July to October time frame of 2018, and then sold AAPL in December of 2018 to March 2019 for it lose money? If they held their AAPL stock or bought AAPL in that time frame, they would have a 400% gain now, in 3 years!

Can't believe anyone has any standing here, and that a judge doesn't throw out the lawsuit as there is no standing whatsoever. This fund manager made the fundamental mistake of buying high and selling low. You win some and lose some as nobody is perfect. Also can't believe fund managers can even be declared a "class".

The class is any owner or Apple stock. They owned tens of millions of dollars of Apple stock. That’s all the standing the pension fund needs. You have no idea what you are talking about and even less knowledge of the legal issues that are involved. You don’t know a single thing about managing a pension fund. You need to stick to tech and leave legal issues, financial and securities law to those who know something about them and have some relevant experience other than being an Apple fanboy.

Seriously, I get it. You’re pissed off and think it’s just another stick your hand in Apple’s wallet lawsuit. It maybe, in which case I hope it dies quickly, but you and most of the rabid fanboys commenting just don’t know too much about this other than you know you are angry.

I don’t know where the other commenters are getting their data from but in the week after Apple revised their guidance and announced it the company value dropped over $450 billion that day. At the time the company had a market value of $1.1 trillion. Cook knew plenty or was misled. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/03/apple-stock-falls-after-cutting-q1-guidance-on-weak-iphone-sales.html

You questioning where others commenters are getting their data from and their ability to interpret the data was not a good look for you, considering you're actually thinking that Apple Inc. lost over 40% ($450M) of their market cap  ..... in ONE day, going by where you got your data from.

That is not what your link stated. It stated that on the day after Apple warning, AAPL was down $450B from its high from last year. Not yesterday. Apple only lost about 10% of it's market cap, the day after the warning. AAPL went from $39.48 to $35.55. Or a drop of about $70B in market cap. Apple market cap at the time of the warning was only about $700B. Which was down 40% from its 2018 high of $1.1T.  

AAPL had already dropped from $51.87 on the Nov. 2 2018 date of Apple 4Q 2018 earnings (where the $89B to $93B revenue estimated was announced.) to $39.48 on the date of the warning. The warning came after market closed. The $35.55 for AAPL on the day after the warning, was the low for the year (2019). AAPL never traded any lower than $35.55, for the rest of the year. And the $3.93 drop in AAPL the day after the warning, did not amount to 40% of Apple market cap. 

Apple hit the $1T market cap on Aug. 2, 2018 with AAPL at $51.85.  At the time of the warning, AAPL all time high was $58.02 on Oct. 3, 2018. Apple surpassed that high on Oct. 11, 2019 with AAPL closing at $59.05. AAPL ended the year at  $73.41. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1530403200&period2=1577836800&interval=1d&filter=history&frequency=1d&includeAdjustedClose=true

BTW- Those numbers are split adjusted. If you even know what that means.