Apple Tweaks EU Core Technology Fee to Avoid Bankrupting Unexpectedly Viral Apps

[Unregistered 4U]

And honestly every time the government does stuff like this is always because of "competition", "reduced cost" or "user choice". But EVERY time there is less (or no) competition afterward, prices go only up and alarmingly fast and the users don't have additional choice.

The EU wants to make sure that the only way to obtain digital goods/services in the region is by way of Apple and Google. They’ve essentially killed the incentive for any startup to try taking them on. If they lucked up and became successful, they would then have to deal with a government telling them how to run their business (and, if they’re successful, they already kinda do know how to run their business). A company the size of Apple has the ability to scale the walls the EU has put into place. A smaller company would not have the resources required.

I guess it’s not surprising, though. The EU has been killing or driving out tech companies for decades now (hence why they haven’t any). They literally don’t know how to do anything else.

 

[31 Flavas]

Well the question is should developers even be required to join the developer agreement to distribute content in the first place.

Motorization can perhaps be a separate but not obligatory thing. Just how it works on Mac.

This is all well and good - If we're equating iPhones and iPads to PCs - Shouldn't the same apply to video game consoles? They're far more actually PCs then either. It's a principle thing isn't it?

 

[Snahbah]

It depends on how much money the market is making. There becomes a break even point.

Erm, you're talking about the European Union – half a billion people!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

OOPS, excellent point, change all of that to “fake cakes” that they rent to companies that sell cakes (as display units). The EU currently supports and upholds the practice of devices being licensed, not sold. Likely, so that companies will continue to sell products in the region. They’ll have to re-evaluate that at some point.

No, its more the point that if you want to rent something you must actually rent the thing, paying a regular fee, have an explicit time limit or subscribe etc etc.

If something is purchased then it’s not rented or licensed, but purchased.
EU currently don’t uphold the practice of licensed not sold.

Case T‑172/21,Valve v Commission: a (seemingly) straightforward case with some open questions of major significance

Background Earlier this week the General Court delivered its ruling in Valve (see here). It addressed some of the legal issues that the Court of Justice did not, and could not, tackle in Canal+ (an…

chillingcompetition.com

https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

This is all well and good - If we're equating iPhones and iPads to PCs - Shouldn't the same apply to video game consoles? They're far more actually PCs than either. It's a principle thing isn't it?

Well I equate iOs/iPadOS with MacOS but I agree, but the caveat being the fact they have been allowed to sell their products from physical stores and other retailers that are separate from the online store.

And Xbox at least allow side loading.

How about, do you think Apple ever had the right to ever charge developers for iOS apps, from the beginning? Regardless of the app being popular or not?

They had the right from day 1 to charge developers for using Xcode or listening the app in their store. But not for distributing it outside the AppStore.

 

[31 Flavas]

Well I equate iOs/iPadOS with MacOS but I agree, but the caveat being the fact they have been allowed to sell their products from physical stores and other retailers that are separate from the online store.

You do realize that games can't make it physical store shelves without the developer forking over 30% and being subject to all licensing restrictions. Developer develops, publisher submits the game to the console manufacturer, and the console manufacturer then distributes. Retailers have to have their own agreements on the purchase and sale of the video games. I'd be more then happy to be corrected.

I'm not saying that discounts aren't available on retail sales, heck, eShop, PSN store, and Xbox online discounts are even a thing. But, console manufactures are 100% in control, on approval, pricing, and distribution just like Apple. Developers aren't avoiding fees, percentage cut, content restriction, nor are developers or consumers able to metaphorically "sideload" any content or games though retail distribution.

If someone who actually owns or runs a Best Buy, GameStop, etc wants to comment and educate me - I'm happy to learn. But, to my knowedge any discounts are at the retailers own expense, because the distributor has literally lowered the MSRP, or otherwise blessed the discount.

I'd be *really* happy to learn that digital distribution on eShop, PSN store, or XBox marketplace provide a discount to the publisher / developer for the lack of physical distribution, I don't think so.

And Xbox at least allow side loading.

Color me skeptical about xbox allowing sideloading - I'm sure it is limited and constrained in a number of ways. That is sideloading "-can-" happen on an xbox. Just like how, even before the EU DMA, Apple has for years allowed sideloading.

They had the right from day 1 to charge developers for using Xcode or listening the app in their store. But not for distributing it outside the AppStore.

Then why are console manufacturers allowed to lock their hardware? Or Apple? Arguments I've heard revolve around: "No questioned the practice. / No one told them, no" "They're allowed to recover the price subsidy offered to consumers on the hardware" "They're not 'essential' hardware like a mobile phone is"

The, "not for distributing it outside the AppStore" -- that's very much not true and rather an after the fact desire. It's been a very heavily litigated matter. In the US, at least, 3rd party development was legally enshrined by early litigation dating back to the late 70's early 80's where Atari wanted to assert that only they could develop for their own video game hardware.

It's not that I can't see the "it's the principle of the matter" -- The "it should be exactly PC 3rd party software sales" viewpoint. But, they're not actually equivalent markets. And, like it or not, there are consumer benefits.