Dutch Consumer Watchdog Gives Apple Fifth $5.7 Million Fine in App Store Dispute (reuters.com) 70
The Dutch antitrust watchdog fined Apple 5 million euros ($5.7 million) on Monday, the fifth such penalty in successive weeks in a row over access to non-Apple payment methods for subscriptions to dating apps. From a report: The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) says the iPhone maker is abusing a dominant market position by failing to allow software application makers in the Netherlands to use other payment methods for dating apps accessible via its App Store. The ACM has been levying weekly fines of 5 million euros since Apple missed a Jan. 15 deadline to make changes that the watchdog had mandated. read more It said the U.S. company had not made any new proposal to comply with its ruling in the past week. "We have clearly explained to Apple how they can comply...," the watchdog said in a statement. "So far, however, they have refused to put forward any serious proposals."
Well.. (Score:2)
...Given how much money they are making from the store, dragging their feet is kind of natural.
Re: (Score:2)
Dating apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Dating apps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe only dating apps people sued them so it's specific? Or maybe they apply these limitations on dating apps only? Who knows..
Re: Dating apps? (Score:5, Informative)
It is a question of who made the complaint. As in all such situations, many people might dislike things, but someone has to do the actual complaint. In this case it was a dating app company.
other apps (competing with apple) are EU courts (Score:4, Interesting)
other apps (competing with apple) are working there way though the EU courts under an differnt issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Dating Apps often target the most vulnerable groups of people, Alone and Horny.
Use our app, see all these attractive folks in your area. But it is going to cost you to use is, so when you do pay them, you find your area is kinda isolated, and/or the people available are the bottom of the barrel type of people. So you got taken advantage of because of hormones.
Re: (Score:2)
That's awfully specific. Is there a reason this isn't being applied to other apps more broadly?
TL;DR: Dutch regulator is looking into dating apps and leaving Apple's overall business practices to an ongoing EC investigation.
Yes. Two reasons actually. Originally the complaint was raised by dating apps and the regulator started looking into general practices. During the course of the investigation the EC opened their own antitrust investigation causing the Dutch regulator to suspend their investigation. It was only after it became clear that the the EC's investigation was too broad to cover the origina
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the Dutch authorities are trying to force Apple to implement it universally.
Apple complied with the requirements - they're having all the dating sites re-submit Netherlands-specific apps that allow alternative payment methods. But the Dutch authorities don't want this - they want one universal app to do it all.
So of course, Apple objects because that's applying the Dutch ruling to worldwide.
So both Apple and the Dutch authorities are at a standoff. Apple says to comply with Dutch ruling, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the Dutch authorities are trying to force Apple to implement it universally.
No they aren't. Their order was exclusive to the one industry which complained.
Apple complied with the requirements - they're having all the dating sites re-submit Netherlands-specific apps that allow alternative payment methods.
Really? That's what you're going with? After the absolute mocking Apple received here on Slashdot for there insanely unreasonable "complying" which we covered here on Slashdot almost to be greeted universally with "The Dutch regulator won't even remotely accept that bullshit"?
Your sentence here is one of the dishonest and stupid things I've read on Slashdot. And yes I'm including 4 years of braindead Trump comments in my assessme
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the government can up the fines a lot higher eventually than any consumers will be wiling to pay for you products, so you tend to lose at that game eventually.
So that would fairly quickly cause all people in Netherlands to switch to Android and Apple losing that market totally (Along with south Korea where similar things are afoot and likely others soon)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the government can up the fines a lot higher eventually than any consumers will be wiling to pay for you products, so you tend to lose at that game eventually.
So that would fairly quickly cause all people in Netherlands to switch to Android and Apple losing that market totally (Along with south Korea where similar things are afoot and likely others soon)
The "They" stupidly set a maximum total for the fine; so, Apple may be deciding to just wait it out.
Re: (Score:1)
You should work for the Apple legal department, given the previous joke proposal you'd fit right in.
This joke could get a bit costly though.
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach...
An afterthought (Score:2)
The D&D crowd have got to love this. The EU keeps up this tirade against big tech and they'll be back in medieval times when big tech cuts them off....
Re: (Score:2)
yeah.. but now. That i snot how it works. Maybe read on now big tech has been "working with" China, even when they are more and more restricted there.
So with that in mind: they will never abandon EU as long as they can hope to get even a sliver..
Re: (Score:1)
So predictable. The anti-EU posters on /. have been saying *exactly* what you are saying for about twenty years. And it never happens. The US companies bluff, bluster and threaten, but we know it's all wind; they literally cannot afford to exit the EU. Unless they can prove to their shareholders that obeying EU law would cause them to lose money, rather than make a little bit less, their hands are tied, and ultimately they will comply.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach...
Citation needed. That's certainly not the reason I buy an iPhone.
Why do I buy an iPhone? I don't know how many other people share these reasons, but here are mine...
1. I got my kids an android laptop for their screentime and it was awful - ads everywhere, requiring to be online too much - so I switched them to ipads and it's better. Having an iPhone makes it easier to interop with the ipads, buy apps for them, control their screentime. It looks like the screentime and parental control setup is best on Microsoft, tolerable on Apple, and worst on Android.
2. My previous phone was an iPhone and it's easier to stick with it and copy the settings over.
3. Easy interop with my macbook.
4. I prefer privacy, and never sign into my google account on (silly, idiosyncratic, ineffective) principal, and it seems too hard to have an android phone without signing in. Too much busywork, too many things to struggle with and figure out.
5. I know that every damn app I install from the store will be doing telemetry and tracking, so "walled garden" is already a lost cause. I stick mostly to the system apps, plus a small number of apps from institutions that I trust or don't mind tracking me (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I have more trust in the Apple apps not monetizing me, than I do the Google apps.
6. My wife has an iPhone and it's easier to use the FindMy system app with her, and use iMessage to chat with her.
I suspect "because of the walled garden" is entirely false as a primary cause of people buying iPhones, and not even true as a secondary cause, but I don't know what numbers would prove or disprove this thesis. Whenever I read unsubstantiated "because of the walled garden" claims, my first assumption is that the writer works for Apple or is financially or emotionally invested in them so far that they're not credible.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach...
Citation needed. That's certainly not the reason I buy an iPhone.
Why do I buy an iPhone? I don't know how many other people share these reasons, but here are mine...
1. I got my kids an android laptop for their screentime and it was awful - ads everywhere, requiring to be online too much - so I switched them to ipads and it's better. Having an iPhone makes it easier to interop with the ipads, buy apps for them, control their screentime. It looks like the screentime and parental control setup is best on Microsoft, tolerable on Apple, and worst on Android.
That's the definition of the walled garden.
2. My previous phone was an iPhone and it's easier to stick with it and copy the settings over.
The wall is working.
3. Easy interop with my macbook.
Walled ecosystem.
4. I prefer privacy, and never sign into my google account on (silly, idiosyncratic, ineffective) principal, and it seems too hard to have an android phone without signing in. Too much busywork, too many things to struggle with and figure out.
You sign into Apple. That's good enough.
5. I know that every damn app I install from the store will be doing telemetry and tracking, so "walled garden" is already a lost cause. I stick mostly to the system apps, plus a small number of apps from institutions that I trust or don't mind tracking me (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I have more trust in the Apple apps not monetizing me, than I do the Google apps.
Same problem either way.
6. My wife has an iPhone and it's easier to use the FindMy system app with her, and use iMessage to chat with her.
I suspect "because of the walled garden" is entirely false as a primary cause of people buying iPhones, and not even true as a secondary cause, but I don't know what numbers would prove or disprove this thesis. Whenever I read unsubstantiated "because of the walled garden" claims, my first assumption is that the writer works for Apple or is financially or emotionally invested in them so far that they're not credible.
That's the walled garden Apple ecosystem.
You're hooked and owned by Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Sorry I misunderstood.
You had written "No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach..." In the context of the article (about regulators wanting the app store to be opened up a little) I thought you meant that people chose Apple because they like the safety that Apple provides in its control of the app store -- i.e. the same argument that Apple makes to regulators.
Instead you meant that people chose Apple because the walled garden forces them into it, which I
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what people mean when they speak of a "walled garden". They mean that you aren't allowed to install apps from any source other than Apple's store, that Apple blocks apps from the store that compete with their own apps, and that they won't allow developers to use services (such as other payment methods) that compete with Apple's services. If you mean something different from that, you're using the term to mean something different from everyone else.
None of those is a reason people buy iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the walled garden Apple ecosystem.
You're hooked and owned by Apple.
Anything that is called an "Ecosystem" is automatically:
1. Walled (based on your vague definition; which uses the terms Ecosystem and Walled/Locked-In synonymously).
2. Facilitating other "Ecosystem" Goods and Services.
Prove me wrong; I dare you.
Re: (Score:2)
I declare you Right!
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect "because of the walled garden" is entirely false as a primary cause of people buying iPhones, and not even true as a secondary cause, but I don't know what numbers would prove or disprove this thesis. Whenever I read unsubstantiated "because of the walled garden" claims, my first assumption is that the writer works for Apple or is financially or emotionally invested in them so far that they're not credible.
It's not "The Walled Garden", per se; rather, it's for all of the reasons stated in your Post, above (and, depending on the particular User, possibly other Reasons). For example, in your Post, you also failed to mention the supposed "cause" of all this recently-manufactured "ire": Apple's simple and Secure Payment Processing. That definitely factors heavily into my Choice to use Apple.
But, in the end, it is my Choice , and Governments, "Watchdog Groups", "Agencies" (full of Unelected Officials whose Admini
Re: (Score:1)
Citation needed. That's certainly not the reason I buy an iPhone.
It's certainly one of the main reasons I bought an iPhone. And have so since 2014.
It's certainly the main reason why my daughter has an iPhone.
It's certainly the main reason why my wife has an Iphone.
I have plenty of experience with Android. Some of my former employers forced me to use Android. I still have some Android tablets laying around.
Android is disorganized, hardly works properly, loaded with bloatware from the vendor (looking at you, Samsung), and Google tracks everything you do.
Did I ment
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Opening the gates to other "App Stores" reduces the security of the whole device. Apple has it right on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach...
No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach...
But we're apparently unable to decide for ourselves, and must be Protected from our own Free Will.
"Freedom of Choice; that's what you've got. Freedom from Choice; that's what you want!" —Devo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You have a choice, don't buy Apple if you don't like it how their phone works and handles payments.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a choice, don't buy Apple if you don't like it how their phone works and handles payments.
Woosh!
I forgot to add the Sarcasm Tag, I guess. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Then Apple has nothing to fear and shouldn't even bother fighting this stuff. When a user launches a Dutch dating app and has the option to pay through Apple or pay through someone else, they'll obviously choose Apple, right? lol.
Re: (Score:2)
It's how the Apple iPhone and iOS is designed, don't like it? Buy an Android....
Re: (Score:2)
No one is forced to buy Apple iPhones, they do it BECAUSE of the walled garden approach...
Indeed. But notice how this has zero to do with the people who bought the phones? Maybe think about about what you write next time before posting something off topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple iOS is PART of the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
And? This has nothing at all to do with iOS either. I may as well sue Slashdot for the personal trauma of having to read your completely pointless and irrelevant post.
Re: (Score:2)
You can read? I thought your handler did that for you
Won't Pay (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except they will. Big tech does indeed in many ways dominate the planet, but they do actually have to follow local laws or leave a place, and in this case Apple most likely do not want to abandon an European country fully to Android.
The next step for the Dutch (Score:2)
Not even a rounding error for them. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple just reported $123.9 billion in first quarter revenue, over $27 billion in profits. Or about $2.07 billion profits per week. A $5 million fine isn't even up to a rounding error on the financials.
And it's free money for the Dutch government. Win-Win.... I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Apple considers it just another business expense. And will continue to do so until the fines exceed the profits generated.
If they were serious about making Apple comply, they'd add another zero on the end each week, until the fines exceed the value of whatever assets are within their jurisdiction, then seize said assets to auction them off.
But then, the government wouldn't get any more free money, now would they?
Re: Not even a rounding error for them. (Score:2)
There are 195 countries in the world, and the Netherlands is ranked 69th by size is population, so somewhere fairly near the middle.
27 billion across 195 countries gives an average profit of about 138 million per country.
On that basis, it would only take 28 weeks, a little over half a year, for this to wipe out a year's worth of profit.
No, it clearly is not sustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how Dutch penalty sums work. There is precedent for a Dutch court raising a penalty payment by 100x when IBM decided they'd rather just pay the fee. These sums are in addition to being forced to comply with a court ruling. In theory ACM can levy up to 10% of Apple's global annual revenue, per year. That won't happen though, as companies tend to start paying attention to how the system works well before maximum penalties are reached.
Re: (Score:2)
A $5 million fine isn't even up to a rounding error on the financials.
It's not a $5million fine. It's an ongoing series of fines that is ticking up weekly. What do you think Apple shareholders think of a $295million dollar yearly cost of managing just a couple of dating apps in a small European country?
The fine is being balanced against the cost of doing business. Just because Apple can afford it, doesn't mean it remotely makes sense to actually ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dayum... (Score:2)
Tim Apple has to open the petty cash drawer AGAIN.
How Apple responds... (Score:2)
When they give users' personal info to law enforcement/authoritarian regimes:
"We obey the laws of the countries in which we operate"
When things don't go their way:
"It's political crap" [theguardian.com]
Next step. (Score:3)
A $5.7 million/week is Apple's 0.022% of week profit so... they do nothing.
Now, what to do after the 4th "non-comply"?
I propose start duplicating the previous week fine until they comply and, if they decide to "leave" without paying, prosecute them for money laundry and ask US to send the CEO for jail time.
Re: Next step. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, what to do after the 4th "non-comply"?
After the last non-comply, usually the next penalties will become much, much harsher as the company is then in contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
A $5.7 million/week is Apple's 0.022% of week profit so... they do nothing.
Do a few Dutch dating apps contribute 0.022% of Apple profit? If not then the fine represents a significantly higher cost of doing business than compliance does.
The rich don't generally get rich by ignoring what pointlessly bleeds them of money. To say nothing of the fact that it's only $5m *now*.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple will just write it off... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple will just write it off as the cost of doing business in Europe. For a company the size of Apple, $5.7 Million per week is nothing to them. This fine is not a deterrent in any way. When Apple's revenue is over a Billion dollars a day (annual revenue $365.8 Billion in 2021), then $296.4 Million ($5.7 million * 52) of fines per year is nothing.
Apple know what they are doing is wrong. They don't care. They know that they will have to change eventually, but all they need to do is throw some tens of Millions of Dollars/Euros at lawyers and lobbyists to slow the process down enough so that they can maximise their profits while finding the next way to lock their customers in.
If the fines were instead exponential, doubling every week of non-compliance, then Apple would have to quickly make changes. Sadly, I don't think European law allows for this.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work like that. There's a maximum of 50M.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the maximum of this ruling. After that will be a new ruling which can (in theory) be max 10% of Apple's annual global revenues. They will not go immediately for the max obviously, but you can count on it being an amount chosen to hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple will just write it off as the cost of doing business in Europe.
It's not the cost of doing business in Europe. It's the cost of hosting a few dating apps in the Netherlands. Any shareholder should be rightfully pissed that Apple pointlessly bleeds money like this for no reason.
And does apple give a shit (Score:2)
The powers of 2... (Score:2)
Simply multiply the fine by 2 each passing week with no action from Apple. They will comply sooner than later, you can believe me.
Does processing a payment cost Apple money? (Score:4)
It really boils down to that. If processing a payment through a third-party system still ends up costing Apple money then they have every right to recoup that cost somehow. I'm not saying that it does and I'll bet most people don't know for sure either unless they're deep in the payment processing industry.
Of course, either way, this says nothing about who gets the money from these fines. Hint: it isn't the people who were supposedly harmed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not costing them 30% of the purchase price to do that transaction.... Even the creditcard companies max out at 3%
Re: (Score:2)
It's not costing them 30% of the purchase price to do that transaction.... Even the creditcard companies max out at 3%
That's exactly why Apple Discounted those Purchases by 3%. Because that is the only part of their App Store Services they are not STILL Providing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically incorrect, Apple does more than just process a payment if you buy through the app store though nothing extensive, but this does seem to be the position Apple are taking. The issue is that this argument isn't very persuasive. All the other app store services are provided for free apps as well so Apple can't tie the app store purchase tax to those services. For example, I can download Spotify and use it for free. The only thing Apple is doing for Spotify in return for requiring 30% of subscription revenue is giving them the option of using their payment portal.
Google seems to essentially agree with Apple; they discount 3rd Party-Processed In-App-Purchases by only 4%. Yet somehow, Google isn't called "Greedy", etc.
Why?