In the Android world, these are OEM stores for the most part. In the future Apple world I can see an MS App Store or Google App Store or ….
We may see a rush and scale back of stores. If this is actually Apple’s solution.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
App Store to Be 'Split in Two' Ahead of EU iPhone Sideloading Deadline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the Android world, these are OEM stores for the most part. In the future Apple world I can see an MS App Store or Google App Store or ….
We may see a rush and scale back of stores. If this is actually Apple’s solution.
When I look at this I see it from an alternative angle.
1st - Reduce cost by getting rid of or reducing the Apple pushed for subscription model.
2nd - This allows the introduction, or reintroduction of apps Apple has either not allowed or arbitrarily removed from the App Store. Including legacy apps.
These are the items I am hoping to eventually see in the iOS/iPadOS world.
You're begging the question. iOS developers aren't paying for a store. They're paying a licensing fee for use of iOS and associated services that is collected as a commission on sales subject to specific terms. To turn it around, why does the Steam store charge so much when all they provide is a storefront?
Never said it doesn't. We were discussing whether a specific regulation exists within the DMA. We agreed that it does not.
So? You can charge a licensing fee on sales through the developer or even a third-party. Again, completely normal. For example, all Xbox games pay Microsoft a licensing fee for each sale. Doesn't matter if they are sold through Target or their own website.
I agree that it (probably) doesn't exist within the DMA.
Please do not omit what I stated yesterday:
If you don't sell through Apple, Apple is owed no commission. Period.
And if you try to be clever by just relabelling that commission formerly charged to an "IP licensing fee" or whatever of a similar share charged on outside sales, you'll run foul of the DMA's anti-circumvention provisions.
Last edited:
I was more along the lines of Netflix, Prime, MS365, Adobe, WSJ, Games, etc…. I get these outside of he Apple world and bring them onto my Apple devices.
It can become a viable business if a company is able to offer pricing, features, options, etc. appealing to developers and/or users. Not every company has the overhead Apple does or wants/needs the profit margins Apple seeks.
Then stop saying they are trying to circumvent a regulation that doesn't exist.
I'll certainly continue to omit it because it's nonsense. Charging a commission on third-party sales is a common and reasonable licensing term. For example, Microsoft gets a percentage of sales for games whether their sold at Walmart or the developer's own website.
Because Apple's licensing terms don't require payment if you don't link to an outside website from within the app.
Which takes back to another reason I don’t shop from my Apple mobile devices.
Their loss.
Stop twisting my words.
I am going to spell it out (only) once more:
Question: Why is Apple entitled to a commission today?
Answer: Because the developer appoints Apple as "their commissionaire for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to end-users" (or relevant in-app purchases) through their App Store. That what it says in Apple's paid applications agreement.
Question: What does a commissionaire do?
Answer: It acts in its own name (e.g. Apple Distribution International Ltd.) for the account of a principal (the developer) by "selling apps" (or in-app purchases) to end users.
Question: What will the DMA change?
Answer: Among other things, the following
"The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper. (...)
The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper. (...)
The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper."
Developers will be allowed to conclude contracts with end users outside of Apple's sales channel.
👉 Once they do that, and for those sales, Apple does not act as a commissionaire (anymore).
Hence, there is no legal basis anymore to charge the same commission they're charging today. If you aren't acting as a commissionaire on a sale, you are not entitled to a commission for being a commissionaire anymore. There's no need to spell that out in the new regulation. Their current paid apps agreement doesn't apply anymore - therefore they're not entitled to its commission anymore.
Question: Could Apple "get creative" and try to introduce other, new "commissions", "IP licensing fees" or whatever you call it. In other contractual agreements, that cover software sales regardless of the distribution channel through which they're bought?
My (tentative) answer: Maybe. I'm not ruling it out.
But!
Question: What if these alternative, new fees/commissions are designed to, in effect, create the same or similar economic conditions for developers as today. I.e., can Apple charge 27% or 12% on any sales.
My answer: They will run afoul of the anti-circumvention provisions. The EU commission will not allow Apple to charge even nearly the same commissions as today on sales that they aren't involved with.
There's no such "licensing fee" today.
Apple's paid developer terms only allow for a commissions as commissionaire or agent.
They are not charging commissions on outside sales today - they rather prohibit them altogether (soon to change).
And if they were to introduce such new "fees" on third-party sales, the EU will scrutinise that very carefully.
Maybe they'll prohibit them totally and outright.
Because why not? They don't exist on other designated core platform services (Android, Windows) either.
But they certainly will not allow Apple is setting these fees as an obvious response to the legislation so that they create similar economic conditions as today's commission schedule. That is, 27% and 12% respectively will not fly - this will be considered undermining the DMA. I guarantee you that.
Last edited:
That’s just silly. Your argument seems to be that since Apple doesn’t charge a fee for something they don’t allow, they can’t charge a fee if they are forced to allow it. That has no logical basis.
They can't charge it unless they're making new developer terms - and have developers agree to them.
The EU will scrutinise such changes thoroughly, especially if they seem to be an obvious response to the DMA coming into force.
And they will not allow such changes if they're designed to create the same economic conditions and use the same unilateral price setting as today.
Simple enough. They update terms all the time.
That’s certainly something you are claiming without evidence. The EU may very well introduce new regulations. But I don’t see any indication that the current DMA is intended to keep Apple from charging for its IP.
So you’re saying the EU never forced Apple to switch to USB-C chargers?
To clarify: not with the DMA that is the topic of this discussion.
They aren't regulating what operating systems you can install on phones.
They DMA regulates software platforms, including software running on hardware like smartphones.
But not the hardware itself.
Example: A smartphone includes a camera. If the core platform operator uses it in their own apps, or to provide their own services, they also have to provide similar access to third-party applications in that software. But they don't have to enable or write drivers if they leave the hardware part unused.
The law spells out the following:
"The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services."
And also:
"The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."
It won't amount to similar commission rates as introduced in the U.S. Not when the DMA was designed to "ensure contestability", "combate unfair practices weakening contestability" in these markets, and limit gatekeepers' power "to easily set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner for their business users and end users".
👉 If developers had to pay 30%/15% on Apple App Store Sales and 27%/12% on outside sales, that effectively makes the Apple App Store incontestable. This is obvious.
Last edited:
And no govt regulation is preventing Apple from offering alternative app stores. But the EU is trying to FORCE them to do so. If forced choice is better for the user the EU should force these other situations too.
*STRAW MAN ALERT*
Your entire argument is that Apple should be FORCED to offer more choice. Which is what every single one of my examples demonstrates, companies that could (but aren’t) offering more choice.
No where did I claim that the govt was preventing them from doing so anymore than Apple is currently prevented from offering side loading by law.
Talk about not making sense, you can’t even keep your own argument straight 🤣
And I and Apple can agree to purchasing the device they are offering me as they offer it.
Mine and their choice in a free market.
You really are bad at this…
So what? It’s not about a duopoly, it’s about user choice, that was LITERALLY the argument you made, and you (and the EU) are pushing for less actual choice by creating only ONE type of allowed model. I’m simply applying the same logic to other areas.
So, you make a good point, maybe not the one you were intending. For those with the money to spend on the quality and polish of an Android flagship like Samsung mainly because it’s one of the few brands that have the quality of the iPhone but allows them to use the device MORE like they see fit, they’ll be able to buy a REAL iPhone instead of a wannabe.
We could see the Android flagship market disappear in the EU. Those looking for cheap phones will still buy cheap phones, that won’t change. But, Apple’s already making most of the profits in the premium phone market. They’re just going to make MORE of the most of the profits.
It would not be the first time a company has been dragged kicking and screaming into making themselves more money and pretending it was their intent all along. 😂
Apple should actually know this, given Steve Jobs’ successsful quest to kill DRM for music purchases. They should take the same approach here.
It seems you have zero clue how the EU separation of powers work.
EU have a parliamentary system, The president chairs debates and oversees all the activities of the Parliament and its constituent bodies (ensuring the Parliament's rules of procedure are applied), in this the role is similar to that of a speakerin a national parliament
The council have a rolling presidency every 6months.
Eu commission Each new president is nominated by the European Council( heads of states of every member) and elected by the European Parliament(elected by the people)
Attachments
The issue you run in to is legally there no distinction calling something a license or a sale. The are the same thing
The EU Directive 2001/29/EC released in May 2001 harmonized the exhaustion of copyright, which the whole concept of used software is built on.
“The first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community.”
And You do have the legal right to resell your windows license, your digital games etc
EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't
You may remember that a couple years ago, an appeals court in the US ruled that, when dealing with software, as long as the provider calls what it sells “a license” rather than a “…
www.techdirt.com
Reselling used software licences – new ruling from the European Court
A law firm that offers more, we want to help you achieve your goals in business and in life, contact Clarion solicitors on 0113 246 0622
www.clarionsolicitors.com
If apple creates a silo, any third party developer can just circumvent it by not using it. And APIs are not protected for the simple fact they are just system calls.
EUCJ
Judgment in Case C-406/10
SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd
The functionality of a computer program and the programming language
cannot be protected by copyright
cannot be protected by copyright
…neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection….In addition, according to the Court, there is no copyright infringement where, as in the present case, the lawful acquirer of the licence did not have access to the source code of the computer program but merely studied, observed and tested that program in order to reproduce its functionality in a second program….
use only the app store and only that. That's what I do now. Years ago, I used sideload in the past never again.
Apples and Oranges. There’s a substantial difference: Market concentration.
Tesla doesn‘t control the market for cars in an entrenched duopoly. Neither does McDonald‘s for Restaurants. The entry barriers to their markets are low. Competitors can (and in the case of Tesla themselves did) emerge.
Yes, it is also about because duopoly - because the two are intertwined:
Duopoly - you have to choose one of the two suppliers - that’s a lack of choice compared to competitive markets, in which market participants (choices) come and go.
…and you can continue using it the way you, with regards to your apps.
👉🏻 You can still download everything through Apple’s App Store.
Did one of your favourite apps discontinue their offer in the App Store?
👉🏻 Just use other, alternative apps that are available in your App Store.
Still feel you‘re „forced“ to use a certain app?
👉🏻 So you agree it‘s „bad“ when someone is forced to use a certain store.
Last edited: