The penalty won't be the big deal here, it'll be what Apple is prohibited from doing. And it'll be really exciting if the precedent set blows back on the entire 30%-rent-seeking-platform-industry.
Are you joking, right?
Below is the quote from the linked article:
> The EU ruled in 2016 that Apple had to repay 13 billion euros ($15.7 billion) in unpaid taxes to the Irish government, after the latter granted “undue tax benefits.” Apple and the Irish government have contested the decision and the case is still in court.
I believe there is going to be many years, many meetings, dinners, salaries, bonuses funnelled out, and in my opinion, also money changing hands under a table, before anything really happens. EU is all sizzle without the steak.
Splitting off the media part (iTunes, Beats, Tidal, and the rest) will have the same effect, I fear.
I don't own an iPhone, but would welcome a professional alternative to f-droid, and Google play on my phone. A well curated appstore would be the first thing I configure on "moms new samsung".
If the careful curation, the QA and "rent-seeking" of the Apple-app-store is truly as valuable as the users say it is, that store would be just as valuable on other phones than the iPhone, not?
It's clear many companies think the 30% cut is too high, but giving up on Apple means giving up on 45% of the highly-lucrative US market.
This means Apple is able to use its dominant position to squeeze the margin of other companies via the too-high 30% fee. A clear monopolistic practice.
As for the value-add (since rent-seeking is about charging without value-add) — it's smaller than you think. Contrast with Android, where you can at least install the app without going through the official App store. Apple's is simply charging for gatekeeping the access to its market (Google would like to do this too but historically hasn't bee in a position to do it as effectively).
The cost to Apple is largely flat. A free app costs as much to host per user as a paid one, and both arguably cost less than a service client like Spotify. And what does Apple add?
I hope the outcome of this is the dissolution of "free" distribution. It's not free, it's sending and revenue to Apple and Google, and the balance is (more than) paid off by paid apps. Flat fees for everyone, pay a cent or so per user per year. It's up to you to make that work.
"Here's the price to have your app in the store, here is the one for one download, here is the one for an update".
Having a blanket "buffet" pricing (sub is 1€ or 100€ ? Doesn't matter it's a set % you owe us !), making it illegal to let the user get the app another way, making it impossible for them to not pay through Apple (and then pay back Apple what you we them for the service you use) is why they're going to lose.
Everything else is just for payment processing, at 10x markup over market rates. Ten times!
Don't wanna use Spotify's own billing system? Don't use Spotify, there's Apple music.
Voila. Competition.
There’s a contradiction in these arguments. Either Spotify benefits from Apple devices, in which case the fee is a cost of doing business that ultimately benefits them, or they don’t benefit from the arrangement in which case they leave the platform.
It’s the same thing with the food delivery apps and other food apps. There are literally thousands of platforms like this. People should just leave if they don’t like the rules.
Apple isn't a deity.
You're essentially saying if a crisp manufacturer wanted to sell in Asda, but Asda didn't want to sell them, Asda could be slapped with enforcement action for not selling the crisps?
Which should be illegal (as we democratically decided to have these laws), having no choice in services is not a feature it's an additional price to pay for the product and customers legally didn't agree to that simply by buying a commodity phone (no contract, no consideration whatsoever for this additional price).
> People should just leave if they don’t like the rules. This is correct, Apple should just get out if they don't like the anti-trust rules of our market.
But this article isn't about legal tender or how debts can be repaid it's about anti-trust and coupling commodities (like bread, and phones) with exclusive services without a service contract at the moment of purchase.
Apple benefits from our society, and they've gamed their way into a Al Capone / Suez Canal / golden goose scenario. They've locked up everything under their control because they managed to weasel themselves into controlling 50% of the mobile phone market. This was, in retrospect, an illegal move.
Either Apple benefits from government-sanctioned commerce, or they don't. They can easily be broken up or fined into oblivion. The industry will move on regardless of what happens to Apple.
I can count on my hand the number of merchants I haven't done business with because they weren't on Google Wallet, Apple Pay, or PayPal.
Zero.
The problem is one company controlling our entire industry.
Did Apple ever advertise openness and reneg on that?
The easiest way to think about it is - John wants to sell Mark a product that works on Mark's iphone. Currently, John cannot do that without a) getting explicit permission from Apple b) giving Apple a substantial cut, regardless of whether John wants to use their services or not.
This is what EU(and hopefully US very soon) has a problem with - Apple holds a gigantic market in their grasp and by controlling it so tightly and by forcing everyone to use their billing, they stifle legitimate business and competition.
By the way you have a link to that law ?
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
"Platforms that reach more than 10% of the EU's population (45 million users) are considered systemic in nature, and are subject not only to specific obligations to control their own risks, but also to a new oversight structure. This new accountability framework will be comprised of a board of national Digital Services Coordinators, with special powers for the Commission in supervising very large platforms including the ability to sanction them directly."
If iOS becomes the android wild west it'll kill the entire selling point of the iPhone.
To me, the iPhone is the equivalent of buying a games console instead of a gaming PC. Less flexibility, less to worry about.
'Its just a phone'.
Sorry, this is irrelevant. If people want a monopoly, that doesn't change the effects of that monopoly existing.
What always baffles me, truly leaves me flabbergasted and confused, is.....who is going to force you to use any other app store other than the Apple Store??
I'm on Android, and yes, there are other stores that exist - you can download the Amazon Fire store or many others, or even sideload apps......or......shocking......you can continue using the Play Store??? How is the mere existence of 3rd party stores going to affect your experience with the Apple Store?
>>To me, the iPhone is the equivalent of buying a games console instead of a gaming PC. Less flexibility, less to worry about.
Again, if you could load a game on your PS5 not from PSN, can you explain to me exactly how it would reduce your ability to only buy and download games available on the PSN?
I'm being sarcastic of course, but I don't think it's that far off. Right now there are whole categories of apps that you simply cannot have as a customer(and which business cannot produce) because apple won't allow them. Not having choice is easier than having choice, sure.
And if - as an example - Epic releases Fortnite on their own store, rather than Apple store, and you as a customer don't want to go through the hassle of installing their store....then ultimately they lose out. But that's a business transaction then - if you want to buy something and the terms aren't convenient for yourself, then you just....don't.
Like, imagine if a company making car mats had to ask for permission from Mercedes to sell mats compatible with their cars. Or brake pads or oils or literally anything car related. We've regulated this through legislation years ago - manufacturers cannot say what is and isn't allowed with their cars post sale, they don't have that power. Why not software platforms next?
Think of the new privacy controls: Facebook doesn't like them. So they open their own iOS store, circumventing all Apple rules concerning privacy labels and do not track status.
If you want a general purpose computer, buy one. An iPhone isn't for that.
I've used this comparison elsewhere - it's as if a company X was making car mats that fit Mercedes models - and Mercedes wanted not only to have a say into whether company X should be allowed to do this, but also wanted a 30% cut from every transactions. Literally decades ago we made laws to prohibit manufacturers from doing exactly this. The question being asked now is - why not software platforms? What makes them so special? And yes, as a software programmer, I understand the technical issues behind this. And those issues can be presented to the courts - but as a society we need to decide if this is something we want to allow or not, this is what's happening now.
Also, the entire web has to maintain Safari compatibility because iOS devices can only browse via Safari's engine. Ironically, this is the only thing protecting us from a complete Chrome monopoly... so I'm kinda in favor of it, but it's a problem we need to address as well.
If Apple wants to secure or curate their platform, fine, but it's now a general computing device, and alternative platforms must be allowed, and most importantly, users must not be prevented from hearing about them.
Imagine the pressure Apple would feel from consumers if they were even still permitted to charge 30% and require companies to use their app store... but they also were required to let apps tell users to go to their website for a cheaper price.
Apple would need to drive it's prices down at least enough to make it worth eating their tax for a smoother experience. The fact Apple prevents consumers from being told about their cut or that things can be gotten cheaper elsewhere is the most insidious and obvious consumer harm in their entire schtick.
If it actually was a general computing device you could just install an entirely different operating system onto it.
If Apple allowed users to install Android on iPhones but didn’t change iOS would that be an acceptable solution? If so, what’s stopping someone from just getting an Android device now? If not- doesn’t Android already fix all of the issues you’re describing?
Not only is that anticompetitive, it's also dangerous (state actors can and do apply pressure on them to censor dissenting apps as Apple is the the single gatekeeper) and wasteful (you can't easily repurchase older unsupported devices due to the artificial limits inserted by Apple in what they can boot).
I don't understand how people can be shocked when Apple says their devices do A, B, C and D, but people complain and want government action so the devices do E.
I'm growing really frustrated with the attempts to force Apple via law to turn my 0 maintenance iPhone into another computer I've got to bloody manage.
(aside) The lack of basic understanding of how all of these restrictions work is so annoyingly pervasive that I have seriously been in arguments with people at conferences who are adamant about how open these Android devices are, and then when I challenge them what device they have they have a jailbroken Samsung on Verizon (the worst combo) and I have to walk them down memory lane to remind them of what exploit they must have downloaded (as I used to know most of the key players; I've taken a step back from the DEFCON scene, though, as the toxicity was getting to me).
TWRP isn't a jailbreak, nor is ADB or Lineage.
Why is it simple: Banks have settled this over (maybe) 100 years and have a (idealistically seen) competitive environment.