Quoting: F.UltraIE was never part of the DMA […]

Then why bring it up if there's no relevance?

Quoting: F.UltraLikewise with the DMA this is about gatekeepers not being allowed to use their position, like Apple being gatekeepers of their Appstore, to get advantages in the payment sector. Which have ZERO to do with a specific cut.

I clarified this (& the cut was still 30% when the DMA was conceived). Doesn't change the idea to regulate the "Apple [30%] tax".

Quoting: F.UltraAnd it is you that have it backwards, Spotify complained about Apple in 2019 but the initial plans for the DMA was made in 2014 during the Juncker Commission, the same commission that gave us the GDPR and that removed the cell phone roaming charges within the EU. It was never about Apples, Google or anyone else:s cut, it was always about regulating the behaviour of the Big Tech firms.

But the Juncker Commission did not formulate the DMA. The Juncker commission conceived this kind of big tech regulation (& I think even defined the term gate keepers) and very likely in this period rule sets were defined. But the DMA itself was formalised later (2020) & will contain lobbying input from various parties (e.g. said complain from Spotify).

There were different approaches investigated, too.

You still fail to explain how the payment processing regulation is not about the cut - when you already said yourself "[they] simply do not want to give Apple any money" (i.e. it's about Apple's cut).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraThey could take 0% and still violate the DMA so no (IE was included for free in Windows, this still violated their monopoly situation in EU). This is about abusing your position as a gatekeeper and not about some specific cut. Funnily enough you have now changed your tune from 30% to (or some other amount) so it seems like you are in agreement that this is not about the 30%.

No, you just have it backwards: It's not like the commission conceived rules & then checked which companies are violating them. No, there were complaints by (European) companies (like Spotify) that Apple is hurting their businesses. It was recognised that some big players are abusing their market power & then constructed rules to counter said effects - like taking 30%. All other concessions by Apple (taking less) became effective after the DMA was already in progress (but nowhere near being passed) or after being in effect (to conform with the DMA).

So yes, the DMA has parts specifically about Apple's (& Google's) cut which was 30% when it was initially conceived.

I think the Internet Explorer was never in dispute for the DMA because it was already dying/dead but yes, there are other provisions to counter different effects, too (like bundling software). Obviously the DMA is not all about Apple.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraThere is not a single mentioning about 30% nor about any value of a cut in the DMA, the DMA is entirely about not abusing your position as a gatekeeper, something that Apple violated by forcing in-app payments to be done by the Apple payment solution _and_ something that they violated by not allowing 3d party app stores to be installed on the iPhone and iPad.

No, it's about Apple as a payment processor because they take 30% (or some other amount). If it wasn't about Apple's percentage then the whole story would be done now - they allow 3rd party payments. But it's not because they still claim a percentage (now 30% - 3% payment processing fee = 27%).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraWhich would be true even if the cut was 1%, so no it is not about the 30% itself. And as I have tried to explain before, the DMA is about lock-in and not some arbitrary cut. Which should be self explanatory since the EU have not went after Valve for their 30% cut on Steam, the DMA case against Valve is only about restricted cross-border sales with zero mentionings of the cut.

I don't think it would be the same if the cut was just 1%. The same is true about Valve.

But yes, we're talking about Apple's cut in general, 30% tax [External Link] is just a representation because that's the default. It's still being investigated although they lowered it to (I think) 27% with external payment processing (as I already said). The cut is part of the DMA because it provides an unfair advantage.

So yes, you're right: Unlike Apple & Co., Valve is actually treated much better since it's only corporate dispute while Apple & Co. face official regulation.

Valve is not a gatekeeper [External Link] (yet) so the DMA does not apply at all. Geo-blocking is a completely different case.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraAnd I pointed out why I think different.

No, you acknowledged 2 claims. But your earlier statement was I contended only the first which I never did.

Quoting: F.UltraConsidering that you just replied to a list of reasons for why it wasn't about 30%, no.

A list in which you state: "[they] simply do not want to give Apple any money". So, yes, that's the whole point.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraHow one earth can you claim that I was misquoting people, this very quote below was your OP comment that I replied to:

I've already pointed out why.

Quoting: F.UltraNo the DSA is not fighting the power to take 30%, they are fighting the lock in, which is why they also have forced Apple to allow external app stores to be installed on iPhones in the EU. And ofc you can care about Apple's payment processing beyond the percentage that they take, perhaps you want to be able to sell in app items in countries where Apple does not conduct payments, perhaps you simply do not want to give Apple any money and might use another payment processor that takes an even higher cut (working in the Finance industry for 30 years I have seen many such cases so this is not as convoluted as it first sounds, some people/organizations simply are this way), and so on and on.

It's actually the DMA not the DSA, sorry for that mixup.

Emphasized by me: Exactly - challenging Apple's 30%.

Quoting: F.UltraGood luck trying to find that in their lawsuit (they are not), the only thing that they presents is in their FAQ where they claim that Valve is doing this with weasel wording trying to avoid the fact that is all about Steam Keys. We all went over this in 2024 when they filed it.

Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 127 Filed 03/23/23

204. TomG also explained to another game publisher that the publisher should “[t]hink critically about how your decisions might affect Steam customers, and Valve. If the offer you’re making fundamentally disadvantages someone who bought your game on Steam, it’s probably not a great thing for us or our customers (even if you don’t find a specific rule describing precisely that scenario).” In that same thread, TomG responded to a question by stating: “we usually choose not to sell games if they’re being sold on our store at a price notably higher than other stores. That is, we’d want to get that lower base price as well, or not sell the game at all.”

Valve's response Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 128 Filed 04/06/23

204. Valve admits that the quoted words appeared in forum postings. Valve denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 204.

Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 127 Filed 03/23/23

205. In response to one inquiry from a game publisher, in another example, Valve explained: “We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . .”

Valve's response Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 128 Filed 04/06/23

205. Valve admits a Valve employee made the statement quoted in paragraph 205.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraBut his point wasn't that they where singled out, his point was that they where not alone in taking 30% and that both Apple and Sony did take 30% as well, something that you contended.

Just stop misquoting people. I was very specific on what I was contending - that's why I was quoting it.

Let me quote it again - this time only the part you haven't read:

Quoting: LupertEverett[…]
yet somehow it is only Steam who is constantly put on target for it.

Do you understand this now?

Quoting: F.UltraThe DSA is not at all about the 30%, in fact the DSA says nothing at all about what cut you are allowed to make, all it says is that certain services have gone big enough that they are now designated as gatekeepers by the EU and as such they are now under different legislation, one of them being that they are not allowed to lock in customers to their in-house payment system. The App Store being designated a gatekeeper is thus not allowed to force apps to user the Apple payment system, whatever payment system they choose to use is however free to take a 30% cut if they want.

And yet, it's an ongoing process because Apple still claims the 30%. How can that be? Nobody cares about Apple's payment processing but the 30% attached to it. That the market power the DSA is fighting. Do you understand this now?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraAgain none of this, including the DSA, have anything to do with the 30% that is under discussion. Also the Fortnite vs Apple have no releveance for Steam since Steam does not have the same "you must use our payment platform for in-app purchases" as Apple have. I still fail to understand what point you are trying to make here?

Then that's on you if you can't make the connection. That's all I can do to show that Valve is - in fact - not singled out - i.e. LupertEverett's statement is false.

To the rest of your claims:
There's even a message (e-mail? I'm pretty sure it was covered here, too) from Sweeney directed at Newell which explicitly states it's about the 30% of the App Store.

The same with the DSA: One part is explicitly about the 30% because it forces Apple to allow payment processing outside the App Store.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraGood luck ty a Fortnite vs Apple suit was because Apple forced Fortnite to use their payment system for in app purchases. So far I have no idea how this somehow makes LupertEverett:s comment that both Sony and Apple take 30% incorrect.

Here I empahsised the relevant parts of the quotes.

Quoting: LupertEverettThe fee, that is... 30%...

You know... the same amount Sony and Apple also gets, yet somehow it is only Steam who is constantly put on target for it.

It's all about the 30%. But since you're conveniently omitting the EU DSA from your argumwnt shows me that you obviously already got it.

Quoting: pbYou absolutely can. There are lots of DRM-free games on steam and downloading the files is the only thing you need to do in order to run them. Obviously you can't do that with games relying on Steam DRM (at least not without using workarounds), but that's something the developer put in there, and not valve. Valve does not require any kind of DRM for games sold on Steam.

Games in Steam are always DRMed (you cannot start the game twice via Steam). Even if the publisher provides it DRM free.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraAFAIK this have only been rumoured by Epic. But if you have any links with data then provide them.

There are quotes buried in court files - I'll have to look for it myself.

Quoting: F.UltraYet when I google it I get back that Apple takes 30% (and 15% for small publishers) and Sony takes 30%...

Fortnite & the App Store ring any bells? Maybe search for EU DSA?

View this comment - View article - View full comments