EU Accuses Apple's App Store Steering Rules of Violating DMA and Opens Investigation into Developer Fees

[jlc1978]

How sovereign are they?

As I pointed out, the US has a strong federal system, which was adopted after it was clear a confederation would not work. Much of what went into the Constitution was the result of failures stemming from the Articles of Confederation.

However, states set their own taxes, can try states crimes (and be tried in Federal as well as state court, or several state courts, for the same crime), set rules for citizenship within the state, they have their own army under control of the governor, etc.; they just do not have the same level of sovereignty as EU member states.

I doubt the EU could ever adopt a federal system like the US simply because of Europe's history and much stronger ties to member states than the EU amongst its citizens.

 

[Beautyspin]

Except those are not "free" per Apple's definition of free:

free Applications without monetization or services related to revenue of any kind (e.g., advertising, sales, or marketing of digital or physical goods or services)

since they monetize their apps. I would say the CTF exists to protect Apple's revenue stream from the big developers if they would go on a competing App Store or roll their own.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see this whole thing play out. It is interesting tehy mentioned steering violations but are just investigating the CTF. Who knows what the end state will be?


As I pointed out they could easily charge the CTF but give credit for any fees paid to Apple on the APP Store, or outside of the App Store, and make truly free apps not subject to any CTF. They could also cap the CTF to the lesser of the percentage commission or the CTF, much like EPIC does for their fees.

Alternatively, they could change the fee structure on the App Store so that any company with annual revenues above X, in order to be on the App Store, have to pay hosting, per d/l or other fees and Apple doesn't take a cut of sales. Then it becomes a question of how lucrative is the App Store for us and can we afford to lose the revenue it generates if our customers do not follow us and new iPhone users have to find us on an alternative store.

Protecting Apple's revenue is not the EU's main goal. They want to remove barriers that Apple has erected against the 3rd party stores. So, the rules must be the same for both. If Apple is charging CTF, then it is fine as long as they charge CTF for apps in the store too. The Exact Same Apps must have the exact same rules in both the stores. Otherwise, there cannot be a competition. No self-preferencing.

Ultimately, just implement sideloading much like it is on the Mac and let developers decide what model to use. I suspect some will bolt just to stick it the man, but many, even the big ones, would stick with the App Store simply because that is where the lucrative user base will be and alternative stores won't have the same type of user base.

In the end, it's all about what is most profitable.

I also doubt most app stores will be cheaper in the long run for most developers. I suspect many will simply

Yeah, but most are not as greedy as Apple and do not aim for huge margins and tout it as if it is an achievement.

The problem is Apple would still be free to charge for access to its services but be free of the App Store gatekeeper status; which would likely give them a lot more leeway in what they can charge.

In addition, any buyer is likely to look at who makes them money and how much and kill off all the ones that cost money or don't make enough money to increase their margin. If their annual revenue doesn't meet the gatekeeper requirements, they are now just another store and free of gatekeeper status.

What happens when alt stores don't want to host free apps? Will the EU and member governments now be willing to pay for apps that are critical to operations but are no longer free?

Or when a paid app suddenly loses its alt store slot that shuts down and no longer can update it or users can no longer d/l it even though they paid for it? That will be a real challenge for alternative stores - how do we stay in business long term? Will there be enough people using our store to make a profit or will they get one or two apps or some free one and not generate much revenue?

Then again, there is the question of will Apple open another App Store or will the EU forbid it?

The EU will forbid Apple from opening another Appstore once they are forced to sell the store.
Alt Stores that are not willing to host free apps like Netflix and Facebook must have a reason. Most alt stores will be curated stores and may not be full blown competitors to Appstore. They may be niche stores like a store for games, a store for corporates, and categories like that. So, a store for children may not host the Facebook app, for instance. That is fine.
Why would an app be critical and no Appstore host it? Any example of such an App?
Regarding the Alt Store shutting down and leaving a paid app in the lurch is a likely scenario. Therefore, any developer will prefer Appstore but for Apple's shenanigans and high-handed behavior. Apple has become used to the walled-garden and are terrified to compete, but if they are fair and compete, they will succeed. They have a loyal userbase and this is the time Apple could leverage it and open up.

 

[jlc1978]

Protecting Apple's revenue is not the EU's main goal.

Right. That's Apple's goal; as it is for any company.

They want to remove barriers that Apple has erected against the 3rd party stores. So, the rules must be the same for both. If Apple is charging CTF, then it is fine as long as they charge CTF for apps in the store too. The Exact Same Apps must have the exact same rules in both the stores. Otherwise, there cannot be a competition. No self-preferencing.

Which is why Apple should charge the CTF on its store and offset the CTF with any revenue generated by the App Store, and give app stores the same thresholds as developers. Then everyone can play by the same rules; and Apple keeps the CTF in place.

Let the developer decide what is best; all they need to do to recoup it is raise the price a bit if they are subject to it; and most developers would not meet the CTF threshold anyway so they aren't impacted.

Yeah, but most are not as greedy as Apple and do not aim for huge margins and tout it as if it is an achievement.

Most simply cannot achieve those margins and would gladly get them if they could and would be pumping out press releases to tout their achievement. For-profit companies exist to make the most money they can, just some are better at it than others.

The App Store significantly reduced one of the largest barriers to entry: the upfront costs to an app to market. This enabled small developers to create and sell a product without spending money on advertising, printing and duplicating manuals and disks, handling returns and unsold goods, and finding distributers willing to take their product; all in hopes of actually selling enough to cover those costs and maybe get 30% of the sale price. Now, they have none of those costs, only a tiny developer fee, get access to a worldwide customer base, and keep 85% of the sale. If it sells, great. If not, they haven't spent a lot of money they will never recoup. Developers benefited from a large, lucrative market and Apple benefited from a growing software list while generating revenue from software sales.

That's why I find this whole "Apple is greedy" argument wrong. Some fundamentals around the App Store may need changing but Apple changed the way apps are distributed and greatly benefited developers.

The main difference between the iPhone and Mac software market was the Mac's market dynamics were already established since PCs already existed when it was introduced; and thus an established market already existed and Apple had to adapt to it. Software was still sold like it was in the Apple ][ days and the ability to easily and cheaply electronically distribute apps at a low cost wasn't around yet.

The iPhone was different. No significant market existed, beyond say Palm, which was more likely the traditional model, and telco's who sold software in their own store. As a result, Apple could create a whole new market model, aided by the explosive growth of internet access. Steve Job's personality, IMHO, payed a large role making it a walled garden; simply because it meant he was in control of all aspects of the iPhone experience, unlike with the Mac.

The EU will forbid Apple from opening another Appstore once they are forced to sell the store.

That would be anti-competitive.

Alt Stores that are not willing to host free apps like Netflix and Facebook must have a reason.

Sure - they don't make them any money but cost them to host. The stores are not in business to provide a free hosting service for apps; let the developers do their own hosting, Netflix and Meta can certainly afford it. It might even be a boon for Meta could now they could hoover up even more of their users' information.

Let governments provide their own official store to host their apps.

Why would an app be critical and no Appstore host it? Any example of such an App?

Any app that uses a lot of bandwidth and generates no revenue; and thus a drain on cash. Unless they bring in a bunch of users who generate cash with other purchases, there is no reason to host them, no mtter how critical. Any store will see what additional revenue is generated by such an app and can use that data to decide if the cost is worth it. Let some other store host it and lose money; if they host enough they can go out of business and you can get their customers.

 

[Beautyspin]

Which is why Apple should charge the CTF on its store and offset the CTF with any revenue generated by the App Store, and give app stores the same thresholds as developers. Then everyone can play by the same rules; and Apple keeps the CTF in place.

I do not get your logic here. Are you saying that Apple should collect the CTF from 1.8 million apps and offset it from Appstore revenue? How does that work?

Let the developer decide what is best; all they need to do to recoup it is raise the price a bit if they are subject to it; and most developers would not meet the CTF threshold anyway so they aren't impacted.

Developers select a price for some specific reason. It is not that Netflix only wants $10 pm from the users and will not be happy to collect more from them. They chose $10 and not $12 or $15 or anything else for a specific reason. Why should they change it to support the illegal CTF.

Most simply cannot achieve those margins and would gladly get them if they could and would be pumping out press releases to tout their achievement. For-profit companies exist to make the most money they can, just some are better at it than others.

The App Store significantly reduced one of the largest barriers to entry: the upfront costs to an app to market. This enabled small developers to create and sell a product without spending money on advertising, printing and duplicating manuals and disks, handling returns and unsold goods, and finding distributers willing to take their product; all in hopes of actually selling enough to cover those costs and maybe get 30% of the sale price. Now, they have none of those costs, only a tiny developer fee, get access to a worldwide customer base, and keep 85% of the sale. If it sells, great. If not, they haven't spent a lot of money they will never recoup. Developers benefited from a large, lucrative market and Apple benefited from a growing software list while generating revenue from software sales.

That's why I find this whole "Apple is greedy" argument wrong. Some fundamentals around the App Store may need changing but Apple changed the way apps are distributed and greatly benefited developers.

Apple is greedy. Look at Vision Pro. It is supposed to be an excellent product, but there are no developers for it. Sales are floundering. Look at Windows Phone. There were no developers for it even though MS begged, threatened, and blackmailed developers. Where is that now?
Apple needs developers and developers need Apple. Nobody is doing anybody any favors. This attitude of Apple that Developers have to be subservient to them because they are in an exalted position has to change. Alternate app stores will come in most countries (maybe in all countries, including the US). Apple better get comply in a dignified manner rather than be dragged along.

The main difference between the iPhone and Mac software market was the Mac's market dynamics were already established since PCs already existed when it was introduced; and thus an established market already existed and Apple had to adapt to it. Software was still sold like it was in the Apple ][ days and the ability to easily and cheaply electronically distribute apps at a low cost wasn't around yet.

The iPhone was different. No significant market existed, beyond say Palm, which was more likely the traditional model, and telco's who sold software in their own store. As a result, Apple could create a whole new market model, aided by the explosive growth of internet access. Steve Job's personality, IMHO, payed a large role making it a walled garden; simply because it meant he was in control of all aspects of the iPhone experience, unlike with the Mac.

How does it matter.

That would be anti-competitive.

Nope.

• In case a gatekeeper does not comply with the obligations laid out in the DMA, the Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the company's total worldwide turnover, which can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement. In case of systematic infringements, the Commission is also empowered to adopt additional remedies such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it, or banning the gatekeeper from acquiring additional services related to the systemic non-compliance.
• https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_2349

Sure - they don't make them any money but cost them to host. The stores are not in business to provide a free hosting service for apps; let the developers do their own hosting, Netflix and Meta can certainly afford it. It might even be a boon for Meta could now they could hoover up even more of their users' information.

Let governments provide their own official store to host their apps.

The hosting will be done by the third party appstores. The developer will go to the Appstore or the alt store that offers the best deal for them. That is the goal of the EU.

Any app that uses a lot of bandwidth and generates no revenue; and thus a drain on cash. Unless they bring in a bunch of users who generate cash with other purchases, there is no reason to host them, no mtter how critical. Any store will see what additional revenue is generated by such an app and can use that data to decide if the cost is worth it. Let some other store host it and lose money; if they host enough they can go out of business and you can get their customers.

Let Apple not host them. Some other store will them up. Nobody is expecting Apple to do charity.

 

[jlc1978]

I do not get your logic here. Are you saying that Apple should collect the CTF from 1.8 million apps and offset it from Appstore revenue? How does that work?

If a developer choses to be hosted on an alternative app store as well as on Apple's and has enough total installs from both places to meet the CTF threshold, it would work as follows:

For simplicity, let's assume the CTF owed from all installs above the threshold is 100,000 Euros and Apple collected 200,000 Euros in commissions from the App Store Sales. Rather than owe 300,000 Euros, the App Store Sales, since they are higher, would eliminate any CTF owed and all they'd pay is 200,000 Euros. Similarly, if the App Store commission was only 80,000 Euros, all they'd additionally owe is 20,000 Euros, since the App Store commision would credit 80,000 Euros to the CTF fee.

I such a case, Apple has the same structure as an alternative store - store fees plus CTF.

In the end, though, I doubt the CTF will fly and Apple will have to change its developer pricing structure to something more like EPIC's, where a developer will simply pay a fixed fee or percentage of revenue, once a certain threshold is reached, for access to Apple's developer tools and services such as notarization. True sideloading would, IMHO, free Apple to be charge for services since now developers and alternative app stores would be completely free of any reliance on Apple to distribute their software; at the cost of losing access to Apple's customer base directly through Apple. That, however, would now be their choice.

Developers select a price for some specific reason. It is not that Netflix only wants $10 pm from the users and will not be happy to collect more from them. They chose $10 and not $12 or $15 or anything else for a specific reason.

They set prices where they think the best profit is; to high and they lose customers and too low and they leave money on the table.

Why should they change it to support the illegal CTF.

They could add to the price so they make the same amount of money, just as companies may raise prices when tariffs are imposed on goods entering a country to cover the tariff.

Apple is greedy. Look at Vision Pro. It is supposed to be an excellent product, but there are no developers for it. Sales are floundering.

It is a product for a market that is new and no doubt way to expensive for the average consumer. However, given the cost to make it I would call it potentially a failure, but not due to greed. Is any company that makes a profit greedy? Are developers greedy because they pocketed the 15% windfall instead of reducing prices? Is the local restaurant owner greedy because the markup on alcohol and dessert may be 200% or more?

Apple needs developers and developers need Apple. Nobody is doing anybody any favors.

I have said all along that the relationship is symbiotic.

How does it matter.

Just pointing out why the markets are different and what I think Job's role in it was. Some on this site say it should be like the Mac but there are good reasons why it it not develop in the same manner.

Nope.

• In case a gatekeeper does not comply with the obligations laid out in the DMA, the Commission can impose fines up to 10% of the company's total worldwide turnover, which can go up to 20% in case of repeated infringement. In case of systematic infringements, the Commission is also empowered to adopt additional remedies such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it, or banning the gatekeeper from acquiring additional services related to the systemic non-compliance.

The key words are can and or. Nothing says Apple is automatically banned from starting a new one.

The hosting will be done by the third party appstores. The developer will go to the Appstore or the alt store that offers the best deal for them. That is the goal of the EU.

It's not the developer's choice if an app store decides not to host free apps or apps that cost them more to host than the money they bring in. Every free app that brings in zero revenue to the store is an unnecessary expense. The only reason to host them is if they drive other revenue to the store. No revenue, no hosting.

Let Apple not host them. Some other store will them up. Nobody is expecting Apple to do charity.

Nor any other store is expected to do charity, which means free apps may have a tough time finding hosting sites.

Why would a store host apps that make them no money and cost them to host? That's money that cuts into profit. They have no incentive to create an eco system that drives iPhone sales since they make no money off of it. That means a developer that wants to create the next WhatsApp like success may find it hard to find a store to host the app, especially if it takes off and uses a lot of bandwidth without paying anything to the store. Unless a store finds new customers are attracted by the free app and those new customers spend money on the store to cover the cost of hosting it and not just d/l the one app it makes sense to stop hosting it.

In cases like that, stores may need to institute per d/l changes to cover their costs of free apps. And while the cost per d/l is small, when you add it up across a lot of apps and d/ls it adds up to an easily avoidable unnecessary expense.

 

[Beautyspin]

If a developer choses to be hosted on an alternative app store as well as on Apple's and has enough total installs from both places to meet the CTF threshold, it would work as follows:

For simplicity, let's assume the CTF owed from all installs above the threshold is 100,000 Euros and Apple collected 200,000 Euros in commissions from the App Store Sales. Rather than owe 300,000 Euros, the App Store Sales, since they are higher, would eliminate any CTF owed and all they'd pay is 200,000 Euros. Similarly, if the App Store commission was only 80,000 Euros, all they'd additionally owe is 20,000 Euros, since the App Store commision would credit 80,000 Euros to the CTF fee.

I such a case, Apple has the same structure as an alternative store - store fees plus CTF.

In the end, though, I doubt the CTF will fly and Apple will have to change its developer pricing structure to something more like EPIC's, where a developer will simply pay a fixed fee or percentage of revenue, once a certain threshold is reached, for access to Apple's developer tools and services such as notarization. True sideloading would, IMHO, free Apple to be charge for services since now developers and alternative app stores would be completely free of any reliance on Apple to distribute their software; at the cost of losing access to Apple's customer base directly through Apple. That, however, would now be their choice.

Are you illustrating what the current scenario is or what you think is the best case scenario that you think should be. Currently, the same app cannot be in Appstore if it is on a 3rd party store, so your scenario will not occur.

The key words are can and or. Nothing says Apple is automatically banned from starting a new one.

Why would the EU make Apple sell its Appstore and allow it to start another one? Even if it does, it should follow the same rules that Apple has for other appstores. So, if Apple keeps the CTF due to which it is forced to sell its Appstore, even the new Appstore will have to have apps that will be subject to CTF. Yes, it may not longer be a gatekeeper.

It's not the developer's choice if an app store decides not to host free apps or apps that cost them more to host than the money they bring in. Every free app that brings in zero revenue to the store is an unnecessary expense. The only reason to host them is if they drive other revenue to the store. No revenue, no hosting.

Nor any other store is expected to do charity, which means free apps may have a tough time finding hosting sites.

Why would a store host apps that make them no money and cost them to host? That's money that cuts into profit. They have no incentive to create an eco system that drives iPhone sales since they make no money off of it. That means a developer that wants to create the next WhatsApp like success may find it hard to find a store to host the app, especially if it takes off and uses a lot of bandwidth without paying anything to the store. Unless a store finds new customers are attracted by the free app and those new customers spend money on the store to cover the cost of hosting it and not just d/l the one app it makes sense to stop hosting it.

In cases like that, stores may need to institute per d/l changes to cover their costs of free apps. And while the cost per d/l is small, when you add it up across a lot of apps and d/ls it adds up to an easily avoidable unnecessary expense.

Not understanding your point here. Are you telling me Appstores will not host free apps? Look at alternate appstores on Android. They all host free apps. In fact, F-Droid, a popular Appstore, hosts only free open source apps.

 

[cupcakes2000]

As I pointed out, the US has a strong federal system, which was adopted after it was clear a confederation would not work. Much of what went into the Constitution was the result of failures stemming from the Articles of Confederation.

However, states set their own taxes, can try states crimes (and be tried in Federal as well as state court, or several state courts, for the same crime), set rules for citizenship within the state, they have their own army under control of the governor, etc.; they just do not have the same level of sovereignty as EU member states.

I doubt the EU could ever adopt a federal system like the US simply because of Europe's history and much stronger ties to member states than the EU amongst its citizens.

States in the US are not sovereign countries. The EU is comprised of full sovereign countries.

 

[chmania]

States in the US are not sovereign countries. The EU is comprised of full sovereign countries.

And, there was one member, the UK, who left the EU. But a "sovereign" state cannot leave the US.

 

[avz]

And, there was one member, the UK, who left the EU. But a "sovereign" state cannot leave the US.

I have a feeling that US, UK and EU are all in some ways "on the table" rather than "at the table". This is probably what makes the situation in general very tense.

 

[Damian83]

Ok. What is "that price"? Dell offers a 256GB SSD mobile workstation computer in Germany, for example, starting at nearly 2,000 euros (excluding VAT) which is even higher than Apple prices for 256GB SSD machines.

u had to google it, so why u dont linked it?

 

[Damian83]

I'm glad you agree they don't need higher specs just a little more knowledge of good computing practices.

i agree with the fact that a normal person, without the help of anyone, needs even endless specs. Someone who teach it (read "fix pc") its not something common, and its still a one-time help. Such people never learn...

 

[Ethosik]

u had to google it, so why u dont linked it?

Not sure which one he is referring to. It’s not hard. Look at any manufacturer. Here I’ll choose an extreme example. You all are basing it on price alone and no other factors so what about 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD for $4,000? Again price alone it is ridiculous

Dell Latitude 13 Inch 7330 Rugged Laptop | Dell USA

13" rugged laptop with enhanced battery life, 5G connection, up to Intel® Core™ i7 processors andtouch-responsive, 1400-nit sunlight viewable screen.

www.dell.com

 

[webkit]

u had to google it, so why u dont linked it?

It was so obvious that you were wrong I didn't think it was necessary to provide a link but below is a link listing several computers having 256GB storage and prices approaching or above 2000 euros (before VAT). Your comment that "only apple still sells computers with 256gb ss" was wrong. Your comment that it was only "on netbooks worth 300€ or less" was also wrong.

256 GB - Laptopcomputer

256 GB - Laptops und 2-in-1-PCs - Laptops und 2-in-1-PCs kaufen und vergleichen. Kaufen Sie noch heute leistungsstarke Latitude-, Vostro-, Precision-, Inspiron- und XPS-Laptops. Kostenloser Versand auf Dell.com

www.dell.com

 

[jlc1978]

Are you illustrating what the current scenario is or what you think is the best case scenario that you think should be. Currently, the same app cannot be in Appstore if it is on a 3rd party store, so your scenario will not occur.

I was pointing out a possible future scenario as a way for Apple to meet the DMA.

Why would the EU make Apple sell its Appstore and allow it to start another one?

To foster competition. Apple would no longer have the major App Store but could provide aa competitor to it.

if it does, it should follow the same rules that Apple has for other appstores. So, if Apple keeps the CTF due to which it is forced to sell its Appstore, even the new Appstore will have to have apps that will be subject to CTF. Yes, it may not longer be a gatekeeper.

Sure, but it would be paying it to itself.

Not understanding your point here. Are you telling me Appstores will not host free apps? Look at alternate appstores on Android. They all host free apps. In fact, F-Droid, a popular Appstore, hosts only free open source apps.

I was not saying they won't host them, just it becomes a financial decision and app stores may chose to limit what they host based on how much revenue they generate. If free apps costs too much to host then they may drop one or more of them to save money.

You no doubt would have stores that focus on a niche market, such as F-Droid; but why host Netflix for free if they don't bring in any marginal revenue? Or any app for free for that matter unless tehy drive traffic to your site.

States in the US are not sovereign countries. The EU is comprised of full sovereign countries.

Which is the difference between a federal system and a confederation of independent states. Sovereignty is a complex subject; the US has sovereign entities and nations beyond the states, and EU members have relinquished some of their sovereignty to the EU.

And, there was one member, the UK, who left the EU. But a "sovereign" state cannot leave the US.

True. SCOTUS declared secession was not possible; but they are a separate sovereign entity which is why, for example, you can be tried for the same crime in state and federal courts.

 

[chmania]

True. SCOTUS declared secession is not possible after the Civil War.

There's no real guarantee that a secession(s) and/or a civil war(s) might not happen again. The richer states might not want to subsidise the poorer states any more.

... and EU members have relinquished some of their sovereignty to the EU.

Which might be those, by the way?

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Right. That's Apple's goal; as it is for any company.



Which is why Apple should charge the CTF on its store and offset the CTF with any revenue generated by the App Store, and give app stores the same thresholds as developers. Then everyone can play by the same rules; and Apple keeps the CTF in place.

Let the developer decide what is best; all they need to do to recoup it is raise the price a bit if they are subject to it; and most developers would not meet the CTF threshold anyway so they aren't impacted.



Most simply cannot achieve those margins and would gladly get them if they could and would be pumping out press releases to tout their achievement. For-profit companies exist to make the most money they can, just some are better at it than others.

The App Store significantly reduced one of the largest barriers to entry: the upfront costs to an app to market. This enabled small developers to create and sell a product without spending money on advertising, printing and duplicating manuals and disks, handling returns and unsold goods, and finding distributers willing to take their product; all in hopes of actually selling enough to cover those costs and maybe get 30% of the sale price. Now, they have none of those costs, only a tiny developer fee, get access to a worldwide customer base, and keep 85% of the sale. If it sells, great. If not, they haven't spent a lot of money they will never recoup. Developers benefited from a large, lucrative market and Apple benefited from a growing software list while generating revenue from software sales.

That's why I find this whole "Apple is greedy" argument wrong. Some fundamentals around the App Store may need changing but Apple changed the way apps are distributed and greatly benefited developers.

The main difference between the iPhone and Mac software market was the Mac's market dynamics were already established since PCs already existed when it was introduced; and thus an established market already existed and Apple had to adapt to it. Software was still sold like it was in the Apple ][ days and the ability to easily and cheaply electronically distribute apps at a low cost wasn't around yet.

The iPhone was different. No significant market existed, beyond say Palm, which was more likely the traditional model, and telco's who sold software in their own store. As a result, Apple could create a whole new market model, aided by the explosive growth of internet access. Steve Job's personality, IMHO, payed a large role making it a walled garden; simply because it meant he was in control of all aspects of the iPhone experience, unlike with the Mac.



That would be anti-competitive.



Sure - they don't make them any money but cost them to host. The stores are not in business to provide a free hosting service for apps; let the developers do their own hosting, Netflix and Meta can certainly afford it. It might even be a boon for Meta could now they could hoover up even more of their users' information.

Let governments provide their own official store to host their apps.



Any app that uses a lot of bandwidth and generates no revenue; and thus a drain on cash. Unless they bring in a bunch of users who generate cash with other purchases, there is no reason to host them, no mtter how critical. Any store will see what additional revenue is generated by such an app and can use that data to decide if the cost is worth it. Let some other store host it and lose money; if they host enough they can go out of business and you can get their customers.

but the apple store had censorship more then other app stores.
And just think if the app store was around in the 80's. Games like Leisure Suit Larry would of been rejected for being to adult.

 

[surferfb]

but the apple store had censorship more then other app stores.
And just think if the app store was around in the 80's. Games like Leisure Suit Larry would have been rejected for being to adult.

I’d argue that’s a benefit of Apple’s approach, not a negative. 🤣

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I’d argue that’s a benefit of Apple’s approach, not a negative. 🤣

they also banned non adult games.

 

[surferfb]

they also banned non adult games.

It’s Apple’s platform and operating system. If they don’t want certain content to run on that OS, that’s their prerogative. If you don’t like it, Android exists.

 

[cupcakes2000]

and EU members have relinquished some of their sovereignty to the EU.

No they haven't. Not at all. They're free to leave. Anything the EU want to impose on the collective must to be OK'd by all of the nations.
There is no loss of sovereignty in the slightest.

 

[surferfb]

No they haven't. Not at all. They're free to leave. Anything the EU want to impose on the collective must to be OK'd by all of the nations.
There is no loss of sovereignty in the slightest.

By definition they’ve relinquished sovereignty. They can get it back if they leave, but they’ve absolutely relinquished it. I mean, that was the entire point of the Brexit - British conservatives were upset about loss of British sovereignty to the EU.

I’ll quote the DMA

Fragmentation of the internal market can only effectively be averted if Member States are prevented from applying national rules which are within the scope of and pursue the same objectives as this Regulation.

So they’ve given up their sovereignty to pass their own laws around “gatekeepers.”

Or an even more basic example, France can’t deny a German citizen entry to the country. That’s a sovereign right France has agreed to give up as part of being an EU member state.

 

[chmania]

By definition they’ve relinquished sovereignty. They can get it back if they leave, but they’ve absolutely relinquished it.

You mean Texas had relinquished sovereignty, and can get it back, only when it leaves the US?

 

[jlc1978]

No they haven't. Not at all. They're free to leave. Anything the EU want to impose on the collective must to be OK'd by all of the nations.
There is no loss of sovereignty in the slightest.

Some items can be decided by a qualified majority and not require unanimity. Free to leave does not mean you have relinquished certain sovereign rights. WRT leaving, a truly sovereign nation could simply walk away and not have to negotiate their exit.

The Irish tax fight showed Ireland relinquished some rights with regard to tax laws, for example. Ireland certainly did not agree with the EU decision to end the tax scheme.

Edit fixed typo to say “not have to negotiate “

 

[cupcakes2000]

I mean, that was the entire point of the Brexit - British conservatives were upset about loss of British sovereignty to the EU.

Most of which was made up to stir a frenzy of patriotism to swing the vote so that leave would win. None of which had anything to do with Britain ever having lost sovereignty.

Try not to read to much into the propaganda of it all, and look instead at the facts.

Leaving the alliance is a full act of sovereignty, therefore each country maintains its own sovereignty. Agreeing to rules and regulations within a pact one willfully joins isn't losing sovereignty if one can just withdraw if one wishes. More so if each member state has a say and has to agree or it gets amended or withdrawn Its simply an equal pact between nations.

a truly sovereign nation could simply walk away and have to negotiate their exit.

Yes. And thats exactly what just happened with brexit.

 

[jlc1978]

Yes. And thats exactly what just happened with brexit.

Typo on my part. Meant “not have to negotiate the terms”
And not everything requires unanimous agreement.