EU's Vestager Warns About Apple, Meta Fees, Disparaging Rival Products

EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager on Tuesday warned Apple and Meta on their new fees for their services, saying that this may hinder users from enjoying the benefits of the Digital Markets Act which aims to give them more choices. From a report: Apple announced a slew of changes in January in a bid to comply with the landmark EU tech legislation which requires it to open up its closed eco-system to rivals.

A new fee structure includes a core technology fee of 50 euro cents per user account per year that major app developers will have to pay even if they do not use any of Apple's payment services, which has triggered criticism from rivals such as Fortnite creator Epic Games. Vestager said the new fees have attracted her attention. "There are things that we take a keen interest in, for instance, if the new Apple fee structure will de facto not make it in any way attractive to use the benefits of the DMA. That kind of thing is what we will be investigating," she told Reuters in an interview. Further reading: Apple Working on Solution for App Store Fee That Could Bankrupt Viral Apps.

Is the EU going to pay for Apple/Meta costs?

[Smonster]

Is not free for Apple or Meta to maintain compatibility with software others create. The EU wants those platforms to be something they are not. They want them to be open marketplaces maintained by private companies without any compensation. It is like if a sports team which owns its field, pitch, court, or arena were forced to allow concession companies and other hawkers to not only setup on their grounds whether they like it or not, but to compete against the companies already there rent free.

Re: Is the EU going to pay for Apple/Meta costs?

[muffen]

I think they are being asked to do less, like, don't collect data without permission, don't block credit cards through nfc, let people distribute apps through their own distribution method, saving cost in review and distribution. All in all, sounds like less work to me.

Re:

[jriding]

Yep.... But ..... Poor Apple and Meta. Maybe someone should start a go fund me to help save them!

Re: Is the EU going to pay for Apple/Meta costs?

[test321]

Asking a fee and setting rules to maintain the ecosystem at scale is not unfair,

It's fair if the same fee applies to Apple's own app store. Otherwise they are discriminating against a competing app store, which is precisely what they were asked not to do.

Re:

[guruevi]

If someone wants to make a competing OS for iPhones and put their app store on it, that would be fine with me. Right now we are demanding Apple to provide the infrastructure and pay for a virtual provider as well.

well then have less rules in the main apps store a

[Joe_Dragon]

well then have less rules in the main apps store and don't take 30% of nexflix subs unless apple really wants to cover the costs of hosting nexfilx and makeing the content.

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

How nice of you to think of Netflix's 30% - when according to them that was never their problem. They stopped offering new subscriptions on iOS because too many users there canceled their subscription. They canceled the remaining subscriptions on iOS because they were stuck on old conditions, and they couldn't just change those conditions because Apple protects its customers.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

And yet strangely Android is not ravaged by malware. We don't see huge botnets of Android devices, or rampant ransomware, or premium rate dialers, or anything like that. Turns out that if you design your OS properly, those things are almost impossible to pull off, and Google scans for malware on top of that anyway.

On the other hand, when private photos get leaked, it's almost always from iPhones and iCloud accounts. For some reason Apple's security around accounts is crap, and it never seems to learn how to

Re:

[brickhouse98]

"security mess" Citation please. It's no more or less secure because there are other stores available. 90+% of android users don't use anything but the play store. I'm sure the same would remain true of Apple even if they're forced to open up their monopoly. Don't worry- the big bad CHOICE isn't gonna hurt you my little deary.

Re:

[Anubis IV]

I think they are being asked to do less, like, don't collect data without permission

I find myself in the odd position of (kinda) defending a company that I find abhorrent, but isn't what you're talking about what Facebook is already doing in Europe with their current approach? They provide a for-pay service that users can subscribe to without consenting to the collection of data. For those willing to provide permission for data collection, they provide a free version of their service in exchange for being able to monetize that information. And having done that, the EC is now saying that's

apple needs to make so you can side load with out

[Joe_Dragon]

apple needs to make so you can side load with out needing to host the installer on apple severs just like mac os. Settings for app store only, app store + trusted devs (not on app store) and allow any app from any place.

What if ford said you can only buy gas from ford gas stations?

Re:

[ACForever]

Wow new stupid analogy to defend apple. Bravo.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

In the EU the view would be that these platforms are massively profitable, so losing a tiny fraction of that profit in order to open up the market to competition is more than reasonable. Don't forget that the whole operation is expected to reduce Apple's profits, i.e. the cost to consumers of Apple's closed platform.

Re:

[brickhouse98]

Pray tell just what Apple is doing here that garners any money? They already charge yearly for dev fees and also only allow you to dev on macs (another charge.) What business is it of theirs how many accounts the company has on their app after that? Does Best Buy get to levy a charge based on how many hours of TV you watched on a television set bought from them? Really wish people would stop carrying water for Apple, etc.

No?

[twocows]

The EU can do whatever the EU says they can do within their own jurisdiction. It's their market and their rules. If Apple doesn't think it's profitable to operate within the parameters that the EU has set for their market, they are welcome to exit that market. Otherwise, they will, in the end, comply with EU regulations or continue to receive whatever punitive measures the EU enacts for non-compliance, up to and including a total ban from the market.

"It is like if a sports team" decided that it would simply ignore its parent organization's rules. If the Detroit Red Wings tried to give the middle finger to the NHL, they would likely face increasingly punitive measures and eventually be banned from the league and replaced by an organization that respects the rules. They don't do this because they're likely not interested in financially ruining themselves, so they play by the rules the NHL sets. Likewise, Apple will eventually either comply or deal with the consequences.

Re:

[stikves]

They wanted a similar thing from Google, separating Ads from Search, and let others' networks advertise there.

The problem is, Google, even though provides a public service, is not a public library. They cannot function on donations or goodwill alone, they are a for profit company needing billions just to make payroll.

And those billions come from Ads on Search. Separate them, and you don't have a Google anymore.

(Some might of course prefer that, but that's outside the scope of this discussion).

First 1 million installs are free!

[toddz]

Get real. If your alternative app store app can't make 0.50 Euro per user after 1 million installs then you should have just released it in the Apple Store. The whole idea of the alternative app store is to make more money. It's not Apple's fault that your app wasn't designed to make money in any significant manner. Charge appropriately and make sure you can cover Apple's fee in case you hit the 1 million installs mark.

Re: First 1 million installs are free!

[muffen]

Think you missed the point, like, completely. If Spotify distributes via appstore, they are hit with 30% fee. If they distribute via alternative app store, they are hit with â0,5 (annually?). Apple music competes directly with Spotify, and at best, the fees are a book keeping exercise for Apple. In other words, the two services are not competing equally.

Re:

[ACForever]

apple users are as good at getting the point as stormtroopers are at target practice

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

How much is a 30% fee on a free app? Zero? Oh you mean, they have to pay 30% on a subscription they don't have to (and explicitly don't even want to) offer. IOW Spotify's problem is that they believe their users are too stupid to buy their subscription on their website. What they want, and what Apple has been fined for by the EU, is to tell users to go to their website to subscribe. Which Apple has allowed since before the fine BTW - if you offer an in-App subscription.

Of course Spotify's (and other's) rea

Re:First 1 million installs are free!

[dgatwood]

Get real. If your alternative app store app can't make 0.50 Euro per user after 1 million installs then you should have just released it in the Apple Store. The whole idea of the alternative app store is to make more money.

So you're saying that it shouldn't be possible for someone to create a nonprofit app store? An app store for open source software whose license is incompatible with Apple's rules?

Re:

[NoMoreACs]

Get real. If your alternative app store app can't make 0.50 Euro per user after 1 million installs then you should have just released it in the Apple Store. The whole idea of the alternative app store is to make more money.

So you're saying that it shouldn't be possible for someone to create a nonprofit app store? An app store for open source software whose license is incompatible with Apple's rules?

You can, and many do, distribute the Source for any iOS App using whatever method you Choose. Any User with access to a Mac with the Free XCode IDE can then Build, Install and Run said Open Source iOS App on their iPhone.

Surely the readers of a Linux-Savvy Website like Slashdot aren't afraid of an occasional Software Build, are they?

Re:

[Plumpaquatsch]

Well, how are you going to finance your "nonprofit" store? By selling user data? By begging for tips? By simply not paying the bills?

alt store is about allow apps that can't be in the

[Joe_Dragon]

alt store is about allow apps that can't be in the main store.

Re:First 1 million installs are free!

[nicubunu]

The whole idea of the alternative app store is to make more money.

Dead wrong. Fine example: Mozilla wants to ship the Firefox browser with Gecko engine and not be forced by Apple to have a fake browser using WebKit, to to this they must use an alternative store, since AppStore is the tool Apple uses to enforce their monopoly. And Mozilla isn't there to make money, to spam and spy on users, their goal is to develop a Free browser.

Re:

[NoMoreACs]

The whole idea of the alternative app store is to make more money.

Dead wrong. Fine example: Mozilla wants to ship the Firefox browser with Gecko engine and not be forced by Apple to have a fake browser using WebKit, to to this they must use an alternative store, since AppStore is the tool Apple uses to enforce their monopoly. And Mozilla isn't there to make money, to spam and spy on users, their goal is to develop a Free browser.

And Apple's goal is, at least partially, to protect their Users. And they know that they can't possibly pore through a codebase the size of something like Gecko, every single time Mozilla wants to Update FireFox for iOS. That's why the WebKit requirement.