It was a carefully awaited move by the iPhone manufacturer in light of worldwide antitrust worries about its domination over the mobile app business that Apple announced on Friday: a way for Dutch dating app developers to avoid using Apple’s in-app payment mechanisms.
Some developers, like Tinder owner Match Group, have contended that Apple’s in-app payment mechanism, which charges commissions of up to 30%, is too excessive. An ACM decision from last year found that Apple regulations in the dating app industry breached Dutch competition laws and forced Apple to enable those developers to utilise third-party payment processors (third-party payment processors).
investors are keeping a close eye on developments related to Apple’s $68.4 billion (about Rs. 5,347,30 crore) services industry as a result of the Dutch antitrust lawsuit.
As long as they use the company’s in-app payment mechanism, creators of dating apps will be required to pay Apple a percentage on sales made outside the app. Prior to this announcement, it had been said that developers who paid Apple’s 30 percent commission rate would owe it 27 percent.
Even if they don’t satisfy all of Apple’s requirements, some developers already pay a reduced 15 percent charge to the company.
It wasn’t obvious whether Apple’s earlier regulations would apply to third-party payment systems as well. On Friday, Apple announced that developers who use third-party payment systems will be charged a 12% fee.
Earlier this week, Apple revealed that Dutch authorities have enforced modifications to the appearance of applications when utilising third-party payment methods.
Apple’s system warns customers that they must contact the developer if they have payment issues, such as needing a refund. According to a statement released by Apple on Friday, Dutch authorities rejected a button that would have allowed customers to opt out of utilising the third-party payment option after seeing the warning.
We do not feel some of these changes are in our customers’ privacy or data security, Apple stated in a news release. According to the ACM’s original order, “we disagree with it and are appealing it,”
