> I agree with mobile app business guru Eric Seufert that the impact of Apple's ATT (anti-ad-tracking) policy on Shopify's stock price raises concerns about how small and medium-sized businesses (many of which rely on Shopify) suffer under the Apple tyranny.
Cry me a river. Letting people control how they're tracked isn't "tyranny".
> I think Apple's conduct following the ACM decision is above board. Sort of hardball, but not out of line--and not entirely without merit.
Really? "Sort of" hardball? Apple's absolutely giving the finger to Dutch authorities. They're not even complying with the letter of the ruling, let alone its intent. C'mon.
They did comply with the ruling by allowing companies to submit apps for the Dutch market that use third party payment processors (albeit with the 27% fee which the ruling did not seem to have an issue with).
The Dutch ACM is now trying to make its ruling apply extraterritorially by rejecting Apple’s solution of allowing a Netherlands-specific app.
> The Dutch ACM is now trying to make its ruling apply extraterritorially by rejecting Apple’s solution of allowing a Netherlands-specific app.
Requiring multiple completely separate apps for different payment methods is insane - the reasonable way is to have the same app support both and show the non-Apple method only for Dutch customers.
> The Dutch ACM is now trying to make its ruling apply extraterritorially by rejecting Apple’s solution of allowing a Netherlands-specific app.
I didn't read anywhere where the ACM suggests an extra-territorial solution, only that it was not adequate. Perhaps lowering that 27% fee could be the ticket, since it Apple's last action appears obstinate/playing number games.
This decision is about the fee Apple proposed when using other payment providers (27%. Add 2-3% for payment processor and you're back at 30%). Unsurprisingly, this arrangement was found wanting.
What about dutch developers trying to publish outside the Netherlands? Shouldn't the Netherlands still have jurisdiction based on the Nationality Principle?
If tech companies and nation states started enforcing/obeying laws based on the Nationality Principle, then FB/Google/AMZN and other data collecting firms would be allowed to ignore GDPR on the principal that the developers are in the US and thus they don't have to follow local laws.
That's one example, but there are numerous others, some worse and some harmless. Either way, it's a problem for everyone. What laws do you follow, which laws are enforced, how many laws are being broken by a developer that is just trying to publish a fun app.
There are ways for a government to project their laws on another nation, but Nationality Principle is not one of them. An example of one country projecting laws onto other countries are the US Anti-Money Laundering laws that the US doesn't even follow but they demand every foreign government that uses USD to follow.
> If tech companies and nation states started enforcing/obeying laws based on the Nationality Principle, then FB/Google/AMZN and other data collecting firms would be allowed to ignore GDPR on the principal that the developers are in the US and thus they don't have to follow local laws.
The developers are in the US. They don't have to follow local laws anywhere else. This is a fundamental principle of international relations dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This international order is a major reason why we can have nice things, like peace, instead of unending war.
It is, of course, possible for the nation to ban these entities from conducting business in their jurisdiction. If such entities preferred to stay out of Europe and lose that business, it would be further possible for the nation to ban its citizens from accessing Facebook and similar businesses via the Internet; the general pursuit of liability consequences which Europe has attached to the GDPR has produced a sort of soft-ban, as any European who has seen a notice from a US newspaper can attest. This is of course quite ugly, but typical GDPR-boosters sometimes seem to think that anyone who doesn't kowtow to the European order is fundamentally Evil and would like to distract you with this fact, while they seek stronger ways to protect their citizens from treacherous foreign newspapers.
We are able to maintain a stable global system with international trade in no small part because most jurisdictions don't try to do the same, legislating what foreign actors may and may not do in their own countries as a condition of their business. This system is eroding — the GDPR didn't actually start it, the US did — and it is likely to have many unfortunate consequences in years to come. Among other things, Europe is of the opinion that GDPR and its fines must be enforced in future trade agreements, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution and its first amendment (the "Right to be Forgotten" in particular).
> dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This international order is a major reason why we can have nice things, like peace, instead of unending war
Westphalian sovereignty has been a myth for centuries. It is incompatible with international trade. It is incompatible with Nuremberg. And it’s internally inconsistent, giving no guidance as to which historical borders are the correct ones nor what counts as domestic versus international concern. (Spoiler: anyone can find some point in time when they had legitimate claim to almost anything, and anyone can deem almost anything domestic or international.)
None of the Treaties’ signatory states exist today. None of them were democracies. Citing it is akin to bringing up the elements of fire and earth in a physics lecture.
People being what they are, of course that the result wasn't perfect. But compared to the previous 150 years of intermittent religiously motivated wars, some of them fairly long (the 30 Year War really took 30 years from start to finish), Westphalian peace was a major improvement in quality of life. In 1648, many regions of Central Europe were essentially depopulated by the incessant fighting and looting.
The Westphalian regime is long dead. Minor breaches haves happened before. Then major ones, like the Nuremberg trials. The internet finally killed it. Nation states routinely engage in internet crimes, for theft of money and IP, denial of service, and (still rare) property damage.
This is the world we built together, where we can cause harm to anyone across the world without leaving home.
> We are able to maintain a stable global system with international trade in no small part because most jurisdictions don't try to do the same, legislating what foreign actors may and may not do in their own countries as a condition of their business.
This is literally nonsense. All countries do this, and have done for the entire modern era.
Over the longer term? If it makes shopify unable to function and shopify collapses, or if shopify loses many of its shops (due to worse terms) - then you get less choice in the market place. Those shops don’t necessarily open elsewhere, vendors stop selling and go back to whatever they did before.
fosspatents? I strongly remember this alleged FOSS supporter shilling for Oracle back in the day of the Oracle v. Google case.
On the topic of the article: good. Apple was clearly taking the piss by charging 27% for not processing payments, immediately after being told by a legal authority that a 30% cut on in app payments was anticompetitive.
There are probably a few devs at Apple trying to work something out, hearing conflicting things from the attorneys ("don't worry about it, we've got this") and their manager ("my boss wants something in case they don't got this"). There's probably a bunch of hardcoded bits about it, it needs to go through QA, all while not pissing on the attorney's parade.
I've been one of those devs once. It wasn't nearly as high stakes though.
As a SWE, the liklihood of my leaving is directly correlated with the frequency of my interactions with lawyers. There is such a desparate need for lawyers with a tech background.
Got sued once and another time I had to implement GDPR/CPRA compliant anonymization of terabytes of data. The latter involved weekly meetings with lawyers to go over the algorithms in layman's terms until we arrived at something they were happy with and felt they could defend it in court.
That's... actually right. Not sure how I messed it up. In that case, I also retract what I said about their Dutch revenue--it seems way less likely to be true at that percentage.
You were basically correct, you just got lost track of the units you were using, we've all been there! $56.7 million per week, annualized for a whole year, comes to $2,948,400,000, which is almost exactly 0.8% of Apple's 2021 revenue of $365B. (Of course, the 50 million fine isn't weekly, but the total max fine.)
I'm not so sure. We're a 17.5 million people country and iOS has a 40% marketshare according to figures from last January.
If we round up that's 7 million iPhones, might be some more tablets but I'd guess negligible. A max of 50 million euros in fines will definitely be a substantial amount of their App Store income.
It reminds me of a notorious bar here in Chicago that has continued to allow indoor smoking ever since the city's 2008 ban went into effect. The popular understanding is that they just keep paying the fines as a cost of doing business.
There are a variety in Los Angeles that stayed open during the entire pandemic and just kept paying the fines. Some were pretty clear about having debts and expenses, they got the fines and weren't like condemned or anything stricter.
(So its always been possible to have a midwestern or Florida experience even in LA county, which has been widely reported as having strict requirements, but its not really anybody's day to day experience)
2.5B euros seems substantial. Everyone is looking at revenue, but it’s probably a very significant portion of their profits in the Netherlands. Revenue is a terrible indicator.
Well, we need to consider that, if changes were made, in order to satisfy one relatively small market, it would reverberate throughout the entire world. Other nations would jump on the bandwagon, or Apple’s entire App Store bottom line could be affected.
I suspect that Apple would not let that happen, and would probably be willing to shut down the Dutch store, if need be.
It would be a different matter, if it were China. I think that Apple may have caved, there.
The best way to punish a company is to take away their trademarks and logos.
Perhaps we should have a three-strikes policy. After the first strike, your company logo gets one bite taken out of it. Second strike, one more bite. Third strike, your logo is gone.
That’d do great things for consumers who don’t know about trademark law and suddenly start buying fake apple products at fake apple stores only to have their identity stolen and/or their bank account drained…
And the damage done to consumers would also be enormous.
For whatever faults they might have, the regulations are intended to protect consumers, not harm them with a scorched earth plan out of a libertarian fantasy.
There are plenty of ways you can punish a company for wrongdoing without risking the consumer as much as that idea would.
yep, just warn citizens that the country will no longer be protecting Apple's IPs. Apple is now generic. Anyone buying apple products is responsible for the damages he or she sustains.
Or wake up to the fact that one of the world’s biggest companies has more leverage in this situation than the 12th biggest (by population) country in Europe.
I am not sure how to compare relative strength of Apple and NL, but they seem to be rather formidable entities. One certainly cannot bend the other to their will easily.
Not if the fine is directly proportional with income or profit. I believe fines in most of the world are stupid. Why pay $100 or €100 if you did something wrong? Pay x% of your income.
An interesting solution, but it immediately Invites the question of whether or not the Dutch prefer their government or their devices.
As far as it goes for Apple, I wonder if they’d be willing to go a year without operating in the country. See how it pans out. It wouldn’t be tolerated by stockholders for China or India, but The Netherlands?
The stockholders can opt to change the CEO and pick one that abides to rulings. And as you point out, citizens can change governments and pick ones that give them the things they want. But is the Dutch antitrust authority part of the government?
And also think what would happen if this ruling happened in the USA.
Just a simple math question: Is keeping the in-app purchasing regime from collapsing worth more than $50 million to them? Yep.
Even if the Dutch revenue isn't that much, once one country succeeds the rest will follow that model. Apple and Google are just going to delay as much as possible, and when their delay tactics no longer work, eat the fines until they're higher than the profits.
> Even if the Dutch revenue isn't that much, once one country succeeds the rest will follow that model.
The point of contention here isn’t about the Netherlands, but about whether the Dutch ruling will apply de facto globally. Apple wants to ensure it doesn’t, by requiring Netherlands-specific apps if enabling third party payment processors. The ACM wants it to apply globally.
Not necessarily: Apple could permit an app developer to allow third party payments in the same app, but only if the user was in the Netherlands. That's not a difficult code path to manage.
The issue here is Apple is trying to frustrate any attempts to circumvent their payment processing: By both still demanding 27% fees, and also requiring they publish a separate app (likely requiring users to uninstall the main app and install the new one), Apple is trying to make it so onerous and painful to use third party payments that nobody will actually do so in practice.
In the court case that led to this, the court required Apple to support third party payment processors, but rejected the claim that their 30% cut was outrageous.
The EU also has regulations limiting how much payment services such as Mastercard can charge. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_...: “caps are set at 0.2% of the value of the transaction for debit cards and 0.3% for credit cards“
Given that, I don’t see how the same court could say a 3% margin for third party payment services is unfair.
Requiring a new app, on the other hand, is the trouble area. It means losing App Store reviews, and, probably more importantly, means users can’t seamlessly upgrade to a version that supports a third party payment service.
Also, if you retire the old app, you likely will lose subscribers. If you keep it around, you’ll likely see few users move to the new app.
They would, but the app developer wants all their users to move to the new payment service (e.g. so that the developer gets to know more about its users)
That calls for making it as easy as possible to migrate. Downloading a new app and deleting the old one is harder for users than using the iOS auto-update mechanism, so developers would prefer to have the ability to update their app with one that offers a subscription through a new payment service.
Developers can force users of the old app by retiring it, but they can’t force them to download the new one. Chances are some users will think “what do I get out of this app?” and not download the new one. That’s the “losing subscribers” part.
I know, but in this case, from what I read, the antitrust authority said something about that in its original ruling, too, but a follow-up court case concerning that ruling scrapped that part of it, implicitly saying the 30% cut is not problematic/the antitrust authority didn’t argue well enough that it is (IANAL, and I don’t think the full history is online, so corrections welcome)
Because of that, I can see why Apple isn’t giving up the golden goose at the moment.
I thought the issue was in regards to laws surrounding dating apps and not generalized? FWIW, here, some NL specific apps just accept a direct bank transfer without any IAP, right in the app. Apple reviewers don't seem to care.
After the ruling, Apple has been requiring the dating app companies to create NL specific apps if they wish to use third party payment processors. They’re getting fined for this.
New fines can be stacked on infinitely - there is no technical limit. If no satisfactory solution of their own design is forthcoming they could be charged with contempt of court, or, eventually, even be bound to a specific solution implementation that will be provided for them by court.
>Those weekly sanctions can reach--but not exceed--a total of €50 million ($56.7 million).
does this mean it could read 50 million per week, or 50 million in total. I would assume per week, as in total does not seem reasonable, but the wording is ambiguous.
My understanding is that EUR 50 million is the max of the current sanction, but that the ACM can always just impose another set of sanctions if they feel Apple hasn't sufficiently fixed the problem.
The sanctions can at most be 10% of (dutch) revenue. However, that can double to 20% if Apple re-offends within 5 years.
And apparently just paying the fines without any attempt to fix the problem for which you're fined can be considered "Contempt of court", which allows a judge to impose further penalties of increasing severity (not just fines), at least according to this blog post by a dutch lawyer: https://blog.iusmentis.com/2022/02/18/wat-kan-de-acm-doen-da...
Total. Based on coverage in Dutch press. An issue I read about is that the sanctions can reach a maximum of a percentage of earnings (10%) but they need to take the exact legal entity into account.
There are other ways in Dutch law to threaten firms with larger amounts but not all of those are open to the antitrust authority. A judge could threaten penalties that can escalate quickly when a company remains non complaint and even persons (in this case: directors) can be taken hostage for not complying. (Obviously, that is a last resort measure and not often used.) Dutch source [1]
"In an earlier case [1] the judge blew a gasket when IBM refused to honour a wrongful dismissal verdict, and kept paying the imposed damages but refused to re-hire the employee: the damages were subsequently raised from €50k to €5 million. If the employee still would not have been returned to his job, the fine could have been raised even more, as there is no legal limit to imposed liquidated damages, as long as the fines are proportional to the case. And what is considered proportional can easily grow to very large sums when you repeatedly ignore a court order"
[1] that case had a very nice summary title: paying damages does not equate to adhering to the verdict; contempt of court
There are ~17 million inhabitants in NL, this concerns Apple devices only (I'd guess 30% market share, idk[1]), it concerns dating apps only, and Apple earns some 30% of any purchase.
For this to not be a loss, every inhabitant (baby and grandma) would have to spend an average of 33 euros (33×17M×0.3×0.3=50M) on dating apps. For "nobody to notice" at Apple, multiply 33 euros by a factor of your fancy.
Possibly. But if the flagrant violations continued, then the arrests would start happening, eventually. (not immediately though, obviously)
Apple better hope it has no business at all in that country. Or possibly even the EU, actually, if there are treaties/EU laws that allow cross country enforcement.
“Dating” apps have pretty sleazy and predatory practices. Their very existence depends on them being bad at their purpose! (i.e. when a person finds a partner they will stop using the app)
Tinder (child of Match.com, one of the parties in the coalition against Apple) charges certain demographics (males) higher for the same services and have other underhanded tactics to nickle-and-dime users, like charging for read-receipts!
Features like visibility boosts are a gamble and they may very well do nothing at all some times.
The beauty of Apple’s in-app purchase system is that if a user feels gypped by an app they can request a refund, and most of the time Apple will grant it without question, so it’s no wonder that companies with predatory business models would be the loudest voice for circumventing user protections.
No matter how you feel about Apple, there are worse wolves in the woods. Let’s not empower the likes of Tinder/Match. They are not the betrodden underdog in any shape or form.
Apple is basically giving the middle finger to the Dutch Authorities. Perfectly inline with their attitude around the world ( apart from China ). And Apple Supporters on Macrumors and 9to5Mac are calling for Apple to pull out of the Netherland. Along with other countries which does not comply with Apple's terms.
I wish there is some sort of Dutch polling group to send out public survey asking the Dutch people:
Apple is the biggest and perhaps the best company in the world, however the Dutch court disagrees with how Apple are charging Dutch business 30% on Apps and Services and given no other choice of payment processor. Should the Dutch Court continue its ruling and authority, Apple may threaten to leave the Netherland which leaves iPhone user with no support and no future Apple product in Netherland.
Netherland is only a small country with 17M population. Even if every single population owns an iPhone it account to less than 1.7% of total iPhone users. A rounding error for the biggest company in the world. Should the Dutch Court continue its proceeding it may ultimately have a negative effect on Dutch citizens. Along with Dutch business without access to Apple's iPhone App Store market.
Should the Dutch court drop the case against Apple? Yes or No.
The better approach is to escalate this from just the Netherlands to the whole European Union. Then Apple can ask itself to pull out of the whole EU market (which they aren't going to do) or to comply.
You can probably see Apple's actions as attempting to hold their position best they can to try and drag that action back a little bit, but I think it's going to backfire badly.
This is such a simp comment. You’re saying that countries should not attempt to regulate Apple, lest they threaten to leave the country’s market?
BTW, the Netherlands has significant power over FAANG/etc, as the majority of American corporations and unicorns are all registered in NL for global tax evasion purposes. What irony!
No, we are a sovereign nation. We've build it over hundreds of years into a place of great stability. Apple is only a corporation that has been around for ~60 years.
Dutch (and EU) consumers have traditionally been well protected by consumer laws to prevent situations like this. It is part of the culture to have this freedom, or freedom im general.
Threatening to abandon any country, because they are big and it is small is only going to agitate the population.
On the past years the feeling in the EU is that Big Tech is abusing its power, financially by bypassing taxes, by its market domination, and also by disregarding privacy. The EU has taken steps to prevent this through legislation (for example GDPR), yet this is mostly being disregarded. Now that the bureaucracy has caught up, you will start to see more and more cases and fines.
You want to serve a wealthy, tech loving country like The Netherlands, you better abide by their rules.
I heard a point recently about driving in bus lanes as a private car: If it's just a repeated fine with no further consequence, it's not a fine but a cost.
Sorry, my comment may have appeared relatively thoughtless but you've hit upon the crux of the point, right? If this is the Nth top comment saying the same thing, and if it is so commonly asked in similar situations, then what actually is the consequence? What actually is happening next? As far as I've seen, not a whole lot?
I'll also make explicit what I thought was implicitly implied in my first comment, what do people think should happen next in these situations?
I'm "people", so I guess I'll chime in with my opinion.
Laws exist because we, as a society, decided that we want to live by a certain set of rules. If the rules are not upheld, law becomes less useful.
Some actors in our society follow the law because they see it is the right thing to do. A lot of actors are willing to make exceptions for this thing or that thing (e.g. speeding). Some actors don't give a damn what the law says, they're only motivated by the possibility of being caught and the subsequent punishment. And lastly, there are actors who just do what they want, punishment be damned.
I would argue that corporations generally fall into the third category. They weigh the likelihood of being caught against the punishment (fine) they will receive.
Regarding punishments, I think they generally ought to be the lightest possible punishment that forces compliance. Two things follow from that. One, that a punishment must be tailored to the infringer. If the infringer has a lot of money, the fines need to match. Two, that means subsequent punishments for the same infraction _necessarily_ must be harsher. The lesser punishment didn't work last time, so it must be increased.
All of this to say that Apple's fine for this should be absolutely staggering.
Apple could ignore staggering fines and simply not do business in countries that issue such fines. But you can only do that a few times before it starts to catch up with you.
>Laws exist because we, as a society, decided that we want to live by a certain set of rules. If the rules are not upheld, law becomes less useful.
Laws exist because someone can enforce it on someone else. That's it. Case in point, Prohibition.
You can sprinkle the platitudes of society and culture, but neither should be the basis for whether a law is valid.
>Regarding punishments, I think they generally ought to be the lightest possible punishment that forces compliance. Two things follow from that. One, that a punishment must be tailored to the infringer. If the infringer has a lot of money, the fines need to match. Two, that means subsequent punishments for the same infraction _necessarily_ must be harsher. The lesser punishment didn't work last time, so it must be increased.
One should also question as to whether the law in place is justifiable. The Dutch court is compelling a business relationship that didn't previously exist. In doing so, it is forcing Apple to take on a cost/responsibility that it never agreed to in the first place. Enforcing an invented obligation is not a just cause to fine a company or anybody for that matter.
I recall Steve Jobs famously did not want to register a car, so he just kept buying new cars when the registration grace period ran out. He also, IIRC, parked in handicapped-marked spaces because they were convenient - the fines were of no consequence to him.
This happens in my home state. We have High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, which require at least 2 people (some roads-3). The maximum fine was recently raised to $536, but the final amount is still up to the State Patrol who writes the citation, AND you can plead in court, AND I see State Police check for violators maybe 2 times a month (I-405 between Renton and Newcastle), AND only when its good weather AND where there is plenty of space on the shoulder to pull over drivers.
For most people, they're better off using the HOV lanes illegally as the expected cost is effectively $0.
EDIT TO ADD: I commute with my kids, so I use the HOV legally. My reverse commute with against rush-hour, so there is no incentive for me to use them solo.
The Dutch authority has send a message between the lines in their public statements: this is just their first step, build a case, test the legal waters etc. They aren't intending to leave it with just this market and just these fines.
So I have been living in the Netherlands for a year or so now and this makes perfect sense judging from seeing Dutch mentality and how they handle police work, law issues, fines, etc.
The Dutch always try to avoid making big deals out of anything that does not need to. This starts with the police being extremely well trained, but actively not engaging in anything until it is really needed and just keeping an eye on everything - one mentionable experience was a mentally unwell homeless man in Amsterdam who posed a very obvious threat to public safety by being violent and aggressive towards pedestrians - they showed up before I even realized they were needed, but then just took that guy (who was preparing to assault a random man walking by) to the side, and then had a 20 minute conversation with him, figured out what the reason for his anger was and then left again. The guy just sat down and looked at the ground until his tram arrived… that was already quite weird to see but if it works out I thought..
The next memorable experience being the time where I actually completely forgot to file my annual tax statement and, to make matters worse, completely forgot to declare a not small sum of money. I then paid what I thought I owned (3 weeks too late, not one word about it just a nicely worded acknowledgement mail once I did..), left the country for a few months and then returned to find some reminders from them with the very polite note to have a look and check if that is really correct - mind you… in my home country the IRS equivalent would have their best men on me at that point - I did check and got some serious anxiety once I saw that I really did not declare it and it actually looked 100% like I was trying to hide the income on purpose..
Guess what they said when I called them with my eyes tearing up and me imagining how much lube I need for this to not hurt.. “First of all, please calm down Mr., your Dutch is very good by the way! Let’s see.. that will be 3% on the amount due, plus 65€ fee for also submitting the report too late. But guess what, it looks like we forgot to calculate all that stuff you submitted for using your apartment to work, so we actually owe you 3k! You'll get it soon, and for next time try to submit your report on time, you don’t want to pay 65€ every year now do you hahahaha”
The stories just goes on like the time where they caught me technically importing hard drugs on the plane (amphetamines without prescription on my person) and just let me go laughing about it.. or that time where I had to defend my girlfriend from some asshole and I think I broke his nose and they just came (like 20 seconds later), had a look, the other guy just stumbled around, they asked him in Dutch if he thinks he did something wrong, him saying yes sir and them literally saying “I think your parents raised you better than that, no?“ That guy looked like he was about to start crying and that was the end of that story. He apologized to me and my girlfriend on his own accord, told me that I had an insane punch and I told him that I wouldn’t have punched that hard it he wasn’t as attractive and big of a danger to my masculinity and we had a good laugh and went our ways.
This just keeps going on and on, nowadays I live in a less „active“ area in Rotterdam right by the harbor but the Dutch mentality is omnipresent in anything and it really makes life so much more enjoyable.
And guess what, you can be absolutely fucking sure I make it a point to file and pay my taxes on time, not because it costs 65€ every year but because the symbolic value behind it is so much bigger.. I was awarded a level of respect and humanness and the thought of having to talk to that nice Dutch lady again and her being disappointed for me to have to pay the 65€ again is just not nice. It sounds completely crazy but if you are being treated this way (even if not always) there is no anger or the need to oppose the government any more. You are one of their people, you want to act as such by yourself too.
Now that leads me to the point I was actually trying to make, sorry for the ramble, this mentality, obviously, starts to completely and utterly fail when there are businesses like Apple involved that do not have any sense of personal responsibility. The symbolic fines will prove completely useless and are laughed at, but the Dutch will refuse deviating from this strategy. They would rather try this 5 times after another, and then a sixth time, because the whole country does only exist today because at some point everybody had to give up their ego and start working together as a country in order to deal with the water - which as far as I know produced sayings like „We are all in the same boat“.
Really, I would argue that companies like Apple do not have sufficient moral values to operate in that kind of responsibility, but the Dutch will uphold theirs anyway, and if it needs to be this will go on just like this for a very long time until someone is burdened with the task of thinking about real consequences, and even then it will probably not what Apple would deserve, just the bare minimum to get them to at least comply with this stupid shit. Another thing seemingly completely incomprehensible to this society, that you would make that kind of a big deal about in the end idiotically small issues as present here.
On another note, I have since moved to a less active part of the country, but the surprises don’t stop, they just change. Last weekend there was Storm Eunice, 100+mph.. I think classified as Hurricane, the Dutch do not see this is any kind of special event it seems, or at most as unusual.. I was sitting in the house, truly scared, I looked outside and there were still people going for walks and riding their bicycles (although with great problems). I opened the apartment door and it fucking shot open and slammed so hard against the wall behind it that the paint layer sprung off, to which a passerby reminded me to be careful as there was a storm right now…
Last story since this happened today again. A few days after I moved into this apartment, I got woken up by a very loud and heavy continuous sound. I got up, went into the kitchen and outside to the terrace, the sound now being deafeningly loud. I looked up and almost shit my pants. Maybe 300ft above my head, if not less, there was.. a fucking APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTER hovering above the house. A real life fucking Apache. In a relatively peaceful residential area. I couldn’t believe it. There were neighbors outside as well, they did not seem to notice. I said Hi and asked what’s going on? They did not seem to realize what I was on about either and I pointed at the god damn attack helicopter above their heads. They looked at it for a second, and then replied
„So what? Is this not compatible with your view of the Netherlands?“
Now try to find a reply to that.
The Apache is still.. simply around sometimes like today, and I still cannot comprehend the mindset required for god damn attack helicopters sitting above a residential area to be not even noteworthy any more, but that's how it is. Nothing else to mention. There is simply an Apache attack helicopter, sometimes also a pair of Ospreys or F15s flying very low above this residential area and doing whatever they do. That's just how it is. I got the Apache pilot to wave back once, I guess that was pretty cool but that is just how it is.
And now if you consider that almost the whole country is actually several dozen feet under sea level and the only reason it exists as it does.. is because there is a huge network of pumps continuously pumping out the water, day in and day out, and if it was not for these pumps a big percentage of this country would be deep under water, and noone even mentions it or thinks about it because thats just how it is.
If you just let this be for a second and try to not go crazy over the insane, absolutely batshit crazy level of mind required to decide this is worth it, you will start to see why the Dutch are where they are and why this issue and Apple itself are being so stupid it is not compatible with this society…
Because at the level of lack of morality and sense of responsibility that Apple operates at the Dutch would not have survived.
Please, Apple, just fucking do this stupid shit, you don’t deserve the treatment you get.
Apple giving the 3% discount for alternate payment processors seems extremely generous in Europe, given that Europe caps payment processing fees at extremely low rates compared to the US[1]:
> As a general rule, the Regulation will cap interchange fees at 0.2% of the transaction value for consumer debit cards and at 0.3% for consumer credit cards. For consumer debit cards, it also gives flexibility to Member States to define lower percentage caps and impose maximum fee amounts.
So, if anything, Apple is giving a 10x discount for the alternative payment processor. Somehow the Dutch authorities seem to want payment processing to be worth .3% of transactions, unless you're Apple, in which case they want them to be worth 100x as much, and at the same time the platform/SDK licensing Apple provides to be defined as worthless.
> the platform/SDK licensing Apple provides to be defined as worthless.
There's still the apple developer fee.
Also, the value of the platform is itself increased by the apps made for it. Without third party apps, iOS devices would be less appealing to consumers.
> Without third party apps, iOS devices would be less appealing to consumers.
I understand this argument, however let's not forget that it's a two way street. People were buying iPhones by the millions well before a single app was sold on the platform, and there are other platforms that the third party apps could publish on. They choose to publish on iOS because, for vast numbers of developers, it is a very profitable platform for them to transact on.
That's a fair point - looks like that's because Stripe is including an array of services that add value beyond basic interchange fees, similar to Apple Pay's included merchant services?
Cry me a river. Letting people control how they're tracked isn't "tyranny".
> I think Apple's conduct following the ACM decision is above board. Sort of hardball, but not out of line--and not entirely without merit.
Really? "Sort of" hardball? Apple's absolutely giving the finger to Dutch authorities. They're not even complying with the letter of the ruling, let alone its intent. C'mon.