2025年，苹果正面临一场前所未有的压力测试。 上周，一份针对欧盟开发者的App Store新条款草案流出，其中隐藏着可能动摇苹果帝国根基的数字：标准佣金从30%降至20%，且适用范围可能突破欧 盟边界。 连苹果设计奖得主Ryan Jones都坦言："没有开发者朋友能理解这些条款的具体含义"——但所有人都清楚，这或许是"苹果税"高墙倒塌的开端。 两份协议，苹果税在欧盟玩起文字游戏 当地时间6月26日，苹果在开发者页面中发布了一份名为《Updates for apps in the European Union（欧盟地区应用更新）》的文件，为应用程序开发者提 供更多途径、引导用户在苹果应用商店之外购买更优惠产品。 看似苹果妥协的背后，随文件而出的是一个堪称"最复杂"的佣金系统。具体来看，苹果针对开发者主要分为了两大类： 第一，如果开发者签署欧盟地区应用替代条款附录 开发者在通过App Store分发IOS应用交易时，既可以在应用内完成交易，包括通过IAP（苹果应用内购买付款）与第三方支付付款两种方式。其中，苹果 在统一抽成17%与核心技术佣金5%的同时，还会对IAP付款用户多征收3%的IAP使用费。 | Com ...

为惩治不善的不正当竞争行为提供有法可依的评判标准，这是善治的第一步；要真正营造市场公平竞争 秩序，还需真正让法律的真实规范成为人们市场活动的行为准则。 正言正行方能构筑起市场公平竞争矩阵。 面对平台经济衍生的定价规则"霸权"，修订后的《反不正当竞争法》也亮出鲜明立场： 平台经营者不 得强制或者变相强制平台内经营者按照其定价规则，以低于成本的价格销售商品。此类行为表面是"让 利消费者"，实则以挤压商家合理利润为代价，扭曲资源配置逻辑，扰乱市场竞争秩序。这一条款有助 于规范平台运营者行为，打造公平竞争的平台运营环境，让竞争回归质量与服务创新的正途。 当然，与时俱进的法律要转变为市场公平竞争的善治力量，需要更多的配套制度和治理体系。 一方面，需要在执法中明晰，法律的规范并不是简单的令行禁止，而是施行后给市场带来怎样的应力结 构变化，各规制主体和利益相关者如何感知与回应新增的法律条款内容，并在对各相关主体的跟踪分析 中有效度量其带来的行为和相对价格的变化，即法律能否真正成为人们遵循的行为准则，不至于出现道 德风险与逆向选择，主要源于各方能否在遵从新的法规中获得正收益或福祉。 27日十四届全国人大常委会第十六次会议表决 ...

Core Points - The European Commission has fined Apple and Meta for violating the EU Digital Markets Act, with penalties of €500 million and €200 million respectively, marking the first non-compliance ruling since the law's enactment in November 2022 [1][2] - Apple is accused of restricting developers from informing users about alternative purchasing options outside its App Store, which hinders competition and user choice [1] - Meta's "consent or pay" advertising model violated the requirement for user consent when integrating personal data across platforms, leading to the penalty despite plans for a new option in November 2024 [2] Summary by Sections Apple - The European Commission identified restrictive practices in Apple's App Store operations, which prevent developers from informing users about alternative options [1] - Apple failed to demonstrate the necessity of these restrictions, leading to accusations of abusing its market dominance [1] - Apple plans to appeal the decision, claiming unfair treatment and potential harm to user privacy and innovation [3] Meta - Meta was penalized for its data service practices, specifically the "consent or pay" model that forced users to either consent to data integration or pay for an ad-free experience [2] - The penalty period is retroactive to the law's enactment, despite Meta's plans to introduce a new option in November 2024 [2] - Meta has expressed that the EU's actions are an attempt to create barriers for successful American companies [3] Regulatory Context - The penalties serve as a strong signal of the importance of the Digital Markets Act in ensuring fair competition and protecting user rights in the digital market [2] - The European Commission emphasizes its neutral stance, asserting that the penalties are based on user protection and market fairness, not targeting American companies specifically [3]