The Dutch antitrust watchdog has fined Apple 5 million euros ($5.72 million) for a third time for failing to allow software application makers in the Netherlands to use non-Apple payment methods for dating apps listed in the company's App Store. From a report: The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has been levying weekly fines of 5 million euros on Apple since the company missed a Jan. 15 deadline to make changes ordered by the watchdog. Apple, which could not immediately be reached for comment, has twice published information on its own blog about changes it is making to comply with the Dutch order. However, the ACM said on Monday it was not receiving enough information from the U.S. company to assess whether Apple was actually complying. "ACM is disappointed in Apple's behaviour and actions," it said in a statement. It noted that Dutch courts have upheld its decision, which found that Apple's behaviour violated competition law. Further reading: Going Dutch.

Apple has announced plans to introduce a new Tap to Pay feature for iPhone that turns the device into a contactless payment terminal. From a report: The company says that later this year, U.S. merchants will be able to accept Apple Pay and other contactless payments, such as credit cards and debit cards, by using an iPhone and a partner-enabled iOS app. Tap to Pay on iPhone will be available for payment platforms and app developers to integrate into their iOS apps and offer as a payment option to their customers. Stripe will be the first payment platform to offer Tap to Pay on iPhone to customers. Apple says additional payment platforms and apps will follow later this year. Once Tap to Pay on iPhone launches, merchants will be able to unlock contactless payment acceptance through a supporting iOS app. At checkout, the merchant will ask the customer to hold their iPhone or Apple Watch near the merchant's iPhone and the payment will then be securely completed using NFC technology. No additional hardware is required to accept contactless payments. Apple also says that with Tap to Pay on iPhone, customers' payment data is protected and that all transactions that are made through the feature are encrypted.

"Developers reacted with astonishment and anger at Apple's 27% commission policy as a minimal form of compliance with a new antitrust law regarding the App Store," reports 9to5Mac. After being ordered by Dutch regulators to allow developers to opt-out of the App Store payment platform, Apple announced today that it "would reduce its commission by only three percent" from the 30 percent commission it typically charges developers, reports 9to5Mac. Additionally, Apple said it would "impose onerous administrative overheads -- such as applying for permission to use a specific API, maintaining a separate version of the app, and filing reports with Apple." 9to5Mac highlights a number of reactions from disgruntled developers: Macworld did a great roundup of reactions to this by a number of well-known developers: "Apple was blasted by developers on Twitter who took issue with the exorbitant fee. Steve Troughton-Smith called the move 'absolutely vile' [...] Marco Arment wrote that you 'can just FEEL how much they despise having to do any of this.' Others noted that it 'defeats the purpose of the law' and that developers will still need to pay at least 3 percent to the payment provider, thus negating even the small savings."

Steve Troughton-Smith retweeted our story, and commented: "Absolutely vile. This says everything about @tim_cook's Apple and what it thinks of developers. I hope the company gets exactly what it deserves. Everybody on their executive team should be ashamed, and some of them should not be here when it's all over. We all see you."

Marco Arment highlighted the conditions imposed by Apple:

- Separate app, only available in Netherlands
- Cannot also support IAP
- Must display scary sheets before payment
- Website links are all to a single URL specified in Info.plist with no parameters
- Must submit monthly report to Apple listing EVERY external transaction

Adding: "And after you pay your ~3% to your payment processor, Apple's 27% commission takes you right back up to 30%. Glorious. Come on, THIS is comedy. Amazing, ridiculous comedy. I'd be surprised if a single app ever took them up on this. (And that's exactly by design.)"

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Economist: Pop-up notifications are often annoying. For Meta, one in Apple's iOS operating system, which powers iPhones, is a particular headache. On February 2nd Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, told investors that privacy-focused changes to iOS, including the "ask app not to track" notification, would cost the company around $10 billion in 2022. That revelation, along with growing competition and sluggish growth in user numbers, helped to prompt a 23% plunge in Meta's share price and showed Apple's might. But what did Apple actually do, and why was it so costly?

The promise of digital advertising has always been its ability to precisely target people. Before the digital age, companies placed ads in places where they expected potential customers would see them, such as a newspaper, and hoped for the best. Online, companies could instead target ads based on people's browsing history and interests. This fueled the profits of companies like Meta, which held vast amounts of data on their users. For years, Apple helped by offering an "identifier for advertisers" (IDFA), giving advertisers a way to track people's behavior on its devices. Users have long been able to disable IDFA in their phones' settings. But last year, citing privacy concerns, Apple turned off IDFA by default and forced apps to ask people if they want to be tracked. It seems most do not: a study in December by AppsFlyer, an ad-tech company, suggested that 54% of Apple users who saw the prompt opted out.

This change has made digital advertising much trickier. Sheryl Sandberg, Meta's chief operating officer, told investors that the change decreased the accuracy of ad targeting and slowed the collection of data showing whether ads work. Both of these changes make "direct-response ads," which encourage consumers to take an action like clicking or purchasing, less appealing to advertisers. The financial impact on ad-sellers like Meta has been painful. The $10 billion hit estimated by Meta amounts to over 8% of its revenue in 2021. Snap, another social-media company, and Unity, a games engine which operates an ad network, also expect Apple's changes to hurt their businesses. Apple, meanwhile, is doing well: estimates suggest its own ad business has grown significantly since it introduced the app tracking pop-up. (A different pop-up, with a more persuasive sales pitch for opting-in to tracking, appears on Apple's own apps.)

Apple plans to charge developers of dating apps a 27 percent commission on any in-app purchases made via alternative payment systems in the Netherlands, the company has announced. From a report: The change comes in response to an order from Dutch competition regulator, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), which has demanded that Apple allow dating app developers -- and only dating app developers -- to use alternatives to Apple's in-app payment system in the country. Twenty-seven percent represents a reduction of only 3 percentage points compared to the 30 percent commission Apple typically charges for developers using its own payment system. The announcement follows Google's proposal to reduce its commission by 4 percentage points for developers using alternative payment systems in South Korea, Reuters reports.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved legislation that, if passed into law, would force Apple to let users install apps from outside of the App Store. From a report: The bipartisan 21-1 vote is a strong endorsement for the bill from Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal, Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn and eight other cosponsors, but it still faces a long road to get a vote in the full Senate. The bill seeks to loosen the duopoly that Apple and Alphabet's Google have over mobile app distribution, part of Congress's push to curb the power of U.S. technology giants. "If you're a consumer, what this measure means to you is cheaper prices, more innovation, better products and more consumer safeguards by opening the walled garden so that new entrants are willing and able to compete on values like privacy and children's safety," Blumenthal said during the hearing. Google and Apple "own the rails of the app economy, much as the railroad companies did at the start of the last century."

Blumenthal estimated the value of the app store market at about $100 billion a year. The measure, S. 2710, would require Apple to let users install apps on their phones and other devices from sources on the web or alternative app stores, a process that's called sideloading. This provision would most impact Apple. While Google offers its Play Store on mobile devices, it doesn't bar users from downloading Android apps elsewhere. Sideloading, which Apple has said poses security risks for consumers, would allow apps to avoid Apple's commissions, which range from 15% to 30%.

To make it harder for stalkers to abuse them, Apple included (and has since upgraded) several safety features that will alert someone to the presence of a nearby AirTag that's not their own, including an audible beep. But according to PCMag, one Etsy seller was, up until very recently, selling AirTags with the speaker physically disabled, raising privacy concerns once again. From a report: The AirTag, a small, easy-to-carry device about the size of a quarter, relies on Apple's Find My network which leverages millions of Apple devices to discreetly keep tabs on the location of the trackers and report that information back to each tag's registered user. The general idea behind the AirTag was that users could attach one to their keys, their backpack, or to other valuable items, and be able to quickly locate them if lost. To prevent their misuse, such as using an AirTag to track someone without their knowledge, iOS users would be eventually notified if a tracker registered to someone else was nearby, while Android users would have to rely on an audible beep that would start chirping three days after an AirTag was separated from its owner.

The product was ripe for abuse -- a concern we emphasized in our initial review of the AirTags -- and a couple of months after their debut Apple addressed those concerns with promised updates that would see Android users getting similar notifications as iOS users when an AirTag was nearby through a new Tracker Detect app that allowed Android users to more easily spot the devices. And the timeframe for when the trackers would start beeping after being away from its registered owner was shortened to a "random time inside a window that lasts between 8 and 24 hours," according to a CNET report.

A flaw in Apple's software exploited by Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group to break into iPhones in 2021 was simultaneously abused by a competing company, Reuters reported Thursday, citing five people familiar with the matter. From the report: QuaDream, the sources said, is a smaller and lower profile Israeli firm that also develops smartphone hacking tools intended for government clients. The two rival businesses gained the same ability last year to remotely break into iPhones, according to the five sources, meaning that both firms could compromise Apple phones without an owner needing to open a malicious link. That two firms employed the same sophisticated hacking technique -- known as a "zero-click" -- shows that phones are more vulnerable to powerful digital spying tools than the industry will admit, one expert said. "People want to believe they're secure, and phone companies want you to believe they're secure. What we've learned is, they're not," said Dave Aitel, a partner at Cordyceps Systems, a cybersecurity firm. Experts analyzing intrusions engineered by NSO Group and QuaDream since last year believe the two companies used very similar software exploits, known as ForcedEntry, to hijack iPhones.

joshuark writes: Microsoft has filed an amicus brief supporting Epic Games in its appeal against Apple, and argues that, "the potential antitrust issues stretch far beyond gaming." As Epic Games continues to file its appeal against the 2021 ruling that chiefly favored Apple, interested parties have been contributing supporting filings to the court. Notably, those have included US attorneys general, but now Microsoft has also joined in on the side of Epic Games. Microsoft's amicus filing included below, sets out what it describes as its own "unique -- and balanced -- perspective to the legal, economic, and technological issues this case implicates." As a firm which, like Apple, sells both hardware and software, Microsoft says it "has an interest" in supporting antitrust law. Describing what it calls Apple's "extraordinary gatekeeper power," Microsoft joins Epic Games in criticizing alleged errors in the original trial judge's conclusions. "Online commerce and interpersonal connection funnels significantly, and sometimes predominantly, through iOS devices," says Microsoft. "Few companies, perhaps none since AT&T... at the height of its telephone monopoly, have controlled the pipe through which such an enormous range of economic activity flows." To support its claim that the Epic Games vs Apple ruling has "potential antitrust issues [that] stretch far beyond gaming," Microsoft describes what else it sees as this "enormous range of economic activity." "Beyond app distribution and in-app payment solutions - the adjacent markets directly at issue in this case," says Microsoft's filing, "Apple offers mobile payments, music, movies and television, advertising, games, health tracking, web browsing, messaging, video chat, news, cloud storage, e-books, smart-home devices, wearables, and more besides."

Eighty-four percent of app developers support an antitrust bill aimed at curtailing the market power of Apple's and Google's app stores, according to a poll (PDF) from the Coalition for App Fairness released Monday. The Hill reports: The industry group for app developers is pushing Congress to pass the Open App Markets Act, a bipartisan Senate bill that would block app stores from favoring their own in-house apps in searches, requiring developers to use their payment systems and preventing users from downloading apps from third-party stores. Developers surveyed by the group complained about exorbitant fees charged by the largest app stores -- Apple charges a 30 percent commission on app store sales for large developers -- and expressed how they'd experienced difficulty getting their apps featured or accepted by app stores. Just 13 percent of app developers surveyed oppose the bill. [...] The poll, conducted by ClearPath Strategies, surveyed 190 app developers in 11 states between December 2021 and January 2022. The margin of error is plus or minus 7.11 percentage points.

"The evidence is clear -- app developers want the Open App Markets Act to pass so that they can have the opportunity to compete in a fair digital marketplace," Meghan DiMuzio, executive director of the Coalition for App Fairness, said in a statement. "For too long, developers have been harmed by gatekeepers' monopolistic practices, and consumers have suffered from less choice and innovation."

Moving halfway across America, from Colorado to New York, Austin and Valerie McNulty had a bad experience after hiring a moving company that subcontracted the work to another moving company.

But they'd also included an Apple AirTag in one of their boxes, Newsweek reports: A moving guy reportedly told Austin that he "just picked up the stuff" and would take another day or two. Due to the AirTag, the couple knew the moving guy was not in Colorado but was just less than five hours away in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. As for the family's possessions, which were supposed to be inventoried and in a safe location, GPS tracking showed that neither action allegedly occurred. "It turns out [the items] just stayed overnight in a sketchy part of New Jersey," Austin told Newsweek.

According to Austin, that same driver who allegedly lied about his whereabouts told Austin in a phone call that he went to see "his lady" and that was part of the delay....

"I think we would have been waiting a lot longer for our home goods to arrive [if we didn't have the AirTag]," Valerie said.... "I would say that AirTags are fairly inexpensive and it's an easy way to hold the third parties accountable."
"When we brought up the fact that we knew his exact location he hung up on us," Valerie McNulty said in a Facebook post (which has been shared more than 4,600 times) — although the driver did eventually call back a few minutes later and the items were delivered the next day.

ABC News reports that the driver "was put on probation" according to his moving company — which also added that it "plans to use AirTags for tracking their drivers in the future."

Valerie McNulty argued to ABC News that "I was never tracking the driver, that was never my intention. I was tracking my belongings." Yet the Washington Post notes the story "comes amid a robust debate about the small plastic-and-metal disks, which launched last spring: Are they creepy or helpful? The trackers have been found on expensive cars, presumably so they could be stolen. But they can also be attached to commonly lost valuables, like keys, to make finding them easier."

Apple Insider reports a Pennsylvania state legislator is even proposing legislation making it a crime to track someone else's location or belongings without their consent, adding that if passed in Pennsylvania the law would "create a precedent for other states to follow suit if passed."

ZDNet quotes a remark from the Director of Cyber-Security at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the BBC, calling Apple's AirTags "a perfect tool for stalking." But ZDNet columnist Chris Matyszczyk adds "That's the problem with technology, isn't it? For every potential good use, there are at least several pain-inducing, criminal-pleasing, world-ending uses. Too often, the bad outweighs the good, especially in the public eyes and ears. Here, though, is a tale of a woman who's glad she used an AirTag for her own surveillance purposes....

This whole tale makes me wonder, though, what we've come to and where we're going.... If our default is that we can trust no one and fear everyone, how can we ever really get along?

Apple will no longer bundle Python 2.7 with macOS 12.3, according to developer release notes for the upcoming software update. MacRumors reports: Python 2 has not been supported since January 1, 2020 and no longer receives any bug fixes, security patches, or other changes. Apple says that developers should use an alternative programming language instead, such as Python 3, but it's worth noting that Python 3 also does not come preinstalled on macOS. Developers can run the stub /usr/bin/python3 in Terminal, but it prompts users to install Xcode developer tools, which includes Python 3.

Around 1.35 billion smartphones were shipped in 2021, according to IDC's quarterly mobile phone tracker. Overall, fewer smartphones were shipped in the final quarter of 2021 compared to Q4 2020 but overall, more were shipped last year than in 2020, IDC said Thursday. CNET reports: Samsung retook the top spot for smartphone shipments in 2021, holding 20% market share globally after shipping 272 million phones during the year. Apple came in second, at 235.7 million phones, Xiaomi with 191 million, Oppo with 133.5 million and Vivo with 128.3 million. Slightly different numbers from Counterpoint Research, also released Thursday, showed similar results: Samsung in first place with 271 million phones shipped during 2021, Apple in second with 237.9 million, Xiaomi with 190 million, Oppo with 143.2 million and Vivo with 131.3 million. It's the first time the smartphone market has grown annually since 2017, according to Counterpoint, with Apple clocking record shipments.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Apple is stifling competition through its mobile app store, attorneys general for 34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia said on Thursday, as they appealed against a ruling that let the iPhone maker continue some restrictive practices. While dozens of state attorneys general have filed recent antitrust lawsuits against other big tech companies, including Facebook owner Meta Platforms and Alphabet's Google, none had so far taken aim at Apple. Thursday's remarks, led by the state of Utah and joined by Colorado, Indiana, Texas and others, came in a lawsuit in an appeals court against app store fees and payment tools between "Fortnite" video game maker Epic Games and Apple. "Apple's conduct has harmed and is harming mobile app-developers and millions of citizens," the states said. "Meanwhile, Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones, stifle competition, and amass supracompetitive profits within the almost trillion-dollar-a-year smartphone industry." [...] The states said in their filing that the lower court erred by failing to adequately balance the pros and cons of Apple's rules and also by deciding that a key antitrust law did not apply to non-negotiable contracts Apple makes developers sign. "Paradoxically, firms with enough market power to unilaterally impose contracts would be protected from antitrust scrutiny -- precisely the firms whose activities give the most cause for antitrust concern," they said.

According to CNBC, Apple "beat analyst estimates for sales in every product category except iPads and overall revenue was up 11% annually." This is despite global supply chain challenges caused by the covid-19 pandemic. Here is how Apple did in the quarter ending Dec. 25 versus Refinitiv consensus estimates (via CNBC): EPS: $2.10 vs. $1.89 estimated, up 25% year-over-year
Revenue: $123.9 billion vs. $118.66 billion estimated, up 11% year-over-year
iPhone revenue: $71.63 billion vs. $68.34 billion estimated, up 9% year-over-year
Services revenue: $19.52 billion vs. $18.61 billion estimated, up 24% year-over-year
Other Products revenue: $14.70 billion vs. $14.59 billion estimated, up 13% year-over-year
Mac revenue: $10.85 billion vs. $9.52 billion estimated, up 25% year-over-year
iPad revenue: $7.25 billion vs. $8.18 billion estimated, down 14% year-over-year
Gross margin: 43.8% vs. 41.7% estimated

[Apple CEO Tim Cook] said that the company's supply issues were improving. He said that in terms of supply challenges, the December quarter was worse than Apple's September quarter, but that he is projecting the March quarter to improve. "Our biggest issue is chip supply, it's chip supply on legacy nodes," Cook said. "And we're doing okay on the leading edge stuff." [...] "What we expect for the March quarter is solid year-over-year revenue growth," Cook said. "And we expect supply constraints in the March quarter to be less than they were in the December quarter."

If you're using either Dropbox or Microsoft OneDrive to sync files on a Mac, you'll want to pay attention to the release notes for today's macOS 12.3 beta: the update is deprecating a kernel extension used by both apps to download files on demand. Ars Technica reports: The extension means that files are available when you need them but don't take up space on your disk when you don't. Apple says that "both service providers have replacements for this functionality currently in beta." Both Microsoft and Dropbox started alerting users to this change before the macOS beta even dropped. Dropbox's page is relatively sparse. The page notifies users that Dropbox's online-only file functionality will break in macOS 12.3 and that a beta version of the Dropbox client with a fix will be released in March.

Microsoft's documentation for OneDrive's Files On-Demand feature is more detailed. It explains that Microsoft will be using Apple's File Provider extensions for future OneDrive versions, that the new Files On-Demand feature will be on by default, and that Files On-Demand will be supported in macOS 12.1 and later.

In addition to integrating better with the Finder (also explained by Microsoft here), using modern Apple extensions should reduce the number of obnoxious permission requests each app generates. The extensions should also reduce the likelihood that a buggy or compromised kernel extension can expose your data or damage your system. But the move will also make those apps a bit less flexible -- Microsoft says that the new version of Files On-Demand can't be disabled. That might be confusing if you expect to have a full copy of your data saved to your disk even when you're offline.

Apple appears to be testing a feature that will let you use Face ID to unlock the phone even when wearing a mask. From a report: The first developer beta for iOS 15.4 has a screen that asks if you want to be able to use Face ID while wearing a mask, at the cost of reduced security, according to photos from Brandon Butch on Twitter and MacRumors. According to pictures of the screen, Apple says that "iPhone can recognize the unique features around the eye area to authenticate" but warns that Face ID is going to be more accurate if you have it set to not work with a mask.

The Netherlands' competition authority has fined Apple $5.6 million for failing to comply with conditions in an order requiring it to allow local dating apps to make user of third party payment technology in their apps. From a report: The tech giant could be on the hook for another $5.6 million fine next week if it doesn't meet the regulatory requirement by then, and each week thereafter for a couple more months -- up to a maximum of $56 million in relation to this particular order. The fine relates to an order made by Dutch watchdog, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), last year -- which found Apple in breach of antitrust rules and ordered it to adjust the conditions it imposes on dating app providers. At specific antitrust issue are App Store terms mandating the use of Apple's own in-app payment infrastructure (aka the IAP API) for any sales of digital content, via which the tech giant extracts a commission. Apple's terms also ban the use of alternative payment systems by dating apps. The regulator also took issue with Apple banning dating apps from referring to other payment methods in their apps. The ACM said today that Apple has failed to satisfy its conditions and must make amendments to bring the rules for dating apps in line with its order.

Apple has introduced a new verification process in the US to ensure that customers who want to benefit from its discounted education pricing are actually involved in education. From a report: It's not clear exactly when its policy changed, but at some point this month, some Reddit users noticed that Apple's education pricing page was updated to note that customers will now be checked by Unidays, a third-party verification service. As well as requiring Unidays, Apple is also placing new limits on how many items you can buy with an educational discount. Apple Track reports that users are limited to one desktop computer, one Mac mini, one laptop, two iPads, and two accessories per year. Given that's more than any student, teacher, or educational staff member is likely to purchase for themselves in a given year, the limit seems to be in place to stop them from acting as an illicit discount broker for all their non-education friends.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Epic Games has filed its opening brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the previous ruling that Apple's control over the iOS App Store does not qualify as a monopoly. The company first gave notice of it appeal in September, but Thursday's filing is the first time it has laid out its argument at length. "Epic proved at trial that Apple retrains trade...by contractually requiring developers to exclusively use Apple's App Store to distribute apps and Apple's IAP for payments for digital content within apps," the filing reads. "If not overturned, [the district court] decision would upend established principles of antitrust law and...undermine sound antitrust policy."

Epic's first legal challenge to Apple's App Store restrictions came to a finish in September, when a district court ordered Apple to roll back some restrictions on in-app payments, but otherwise cleared the company of antitrust charges. A separate appeal from Apple has been filed to reverse the new in-app payment rules.

In her ruling, Judge Gonzales Rogers was particularly ambiguous on the question of whether Apple held monopoly power over the mobile gaming market. "The evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share," she wrote in the decision. "Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because [Epic] did not focus on this topic." In the appeals brief, Epic seems determined to revisit that question, and draw a clearer link between the iPhone's success as a mobile gaming platform and a potential monopoly case against Apple. "The district court's factual findings make clear," the filing alleges, "that Apple's conduct is precisely what the antitrust laws prohibit." In response to the filing, Apple issued the following statement: "In its ruling last year, the district court confirmed that Apple is not a monopolist in any relevant market and that its agreements with app developers are legal under antitrust laws. We are confident that the rulings challenged by Epic will be affirmed on appeal."