Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The DMA and its objectives are not that hard to understand.
And EU doesn’t mandate zero-strings-attached sideloading.
For example, it doesn’t prevent Apple from charging business users (developers).

But if you pretend that…

- every app is 50 cents per annual install
- forever
- even if you make no sales from the users that have downloaded it
- except if you use our own store - where it continues to be free

…you should not act like surprised Pikachu (as Apple and its apologists and fanboys seem to do) when found violating the law and its objectives.

Then maybe you can tell me what is an acceptable rate to charge developers then.

The EU set deliberately-vague conditions, then expected Apple to intuit the way the EU would be happy, and do precisely “that”. Whatever "that" was.

If Apple expected any attempt to be in compliance to end in regulatory action, then really, I maintain that the best opening move is to be as restrictive and defensible as possible.

I really don't think Apple's instincts on this were incorrect, because my impression from the beginning was that the EU was crafting this legislation to target Big Tech companies.

And fair play, if the EU leadership thinks those companies need to be reigned in (not an outlandish thing to think), it's within their right to craft that legislation. But if the companies targeted under these laws feel they'll suffer regulatory action regardless of their attempts at compliance, why try to be an over-achiever?

Like I said from the beginning - if the EU wants Apple to do something a certain way, then they should detail precisely, word for word, what they want Apple to do. Otherwise, one could argue that charging developers even a cent is one cent too many.
 
Then maybe you can tell me what is an acceptable rate to charge developers then.
That’s up to Apple to decide. 🤷‍♀️
I‘m not proposing EU (like I understand you) legislation should regulate such charges to the detail.

But what is obviously not keeping with the objective of fair and contestable markets that allow for downloads/installation from other sources/stores:

- introducing a charge that (you know!) competitors will somehow have to pass through to end users
- and then not charging it through your own store.

That’s giving your own store an unfair advantage. I have little doubt that Apple would be deemed compliant if they passed through the core technology fee to their own end users.

It’s not dissimilar to the telecoms market, where incumbent providers have to share their „last mile“ lines. If your wholesale pricing is higher than your own end-user pricing, don’t act surprised once government steps in.
 
Last edited:
That’s entirely up to Apple to decide.

What is not keeping with the objective of fair and contestable markets that allow for downloads/installation from other sources/stores:

- introducing a charge that (you know!) competitors will somehow have to pass through to end users
- and thrn not charging it through your own store

For downloads made via third party payments in a third party App Store, a flat fee makes sense to me when you consider that Apple will have zero insight into how much revenue the developers make.

Therefore, it would not be feasible to charge them a percentage of earnings unless you are also in favour of Apple personally auditing their account books in order to ascertain how much money they have made (a particularly invasive and time consuming process).

Easier to just track the number of downloads, then multiply that by a fixed amount.

What people really want (but won’t admit) is that they feel Apple should just waive their cut altogether and run the App Store for free, subsidised solely via hardware profits. And maybe Apple will eventually find itself backed into that corner, but until that day comes, the EU is going to have to fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground they want Apple to give up.

I maintain that the EU is simply not a good piece of legislation. In this regard, I support Apple continuing to test their boundaries so we get real clarity on what is being asked.
 
For downloads made via third party payments in a third party App Store, a flat fee makes sense to me when you consider that Apple will have zero insight into how much revenue the developers make.
Why should they insight into developers' revenue?

Apple isn't the taxman. If anything, it would give Apple an unfair business advantage over third-party developers and other alternative stores. Given one company insight into the revenue of their competitors isn't how fair competition and competitive/contestable markets work (insight as in beyond the financial reporting requirements companies are subject to, that is).

Therefore, it would not be feasible to charge them a percentage of earnings
Correct. 👍🏻

And that's how it should be. One single company charging all other competitors a percentage of earnings (and then undercutting it) isn't how fair competition and competitive/contestable markets work.

What people really want (but won’t admit) is that they feel Apple should just waive their cut altogether and run the App Store for free, subsidised solely via hardware profits
As long as they're basically running it for free to the Facebooks, Ubers, Booking.coms, AliExpresses, DoorDashes, my bank, public broadcasting service, and my local transit agency, I see no reason or justification why they shouldn't!?

What I see even less justification for, is Apple selectively imposing an Apple tax on digital goods/services - particularly with Apple competing themselves with so many of them for such sales (Music, eBooks, Movies/streaming, cloud storage etc.). Again: That doesn't make for fair and competitive markets.
 
What I see even less justification for, is Apple selectively imposing an Apple tax on digital goods/services - particularly with Apple competing themselves with so many of them for such sales (Music, eBooks, Movies/streaming, cloud storage etc.). Again: That doesn't make for fair and competitive markets.

Which is why I asked you - what’s your proposal then?

Prior to Apple announcing the CTF, my own proposal was for Apple to bill developers of third party app stores 27%, which then raised the question - 27% of how much exactly? Hence the suggestion to periodically audit these developers to ensure that what they are paying Apple is commensurate with their income. Which is both time consuming and costly and not really desirable from anyone’s perspective. But then how else do you keep developers honest?

The App Store should just let developers keep 100% of revenue. Is that what you are basically advocating? Even in markets which Apple does not directly compete in? I mean, even Spotify isn’t really paying Apple anything these days.
 
It sounds terrible, but what would happen if Apple left the EU market? A solid billion is a lot to be fined for non-compliance. I respect the spirit of EU regulations to open up closed systems, to promote standards, and to protect user privacy. I wonder if the EU is too ambitious; their regulations are sometimes challenging to comply with. I’m referring to GDPR… this I’m unsure of. I hear many battles with the EU and anti-competitive practices, but at some point, switching to leave a market will become a viable option.
Given Apple begrudes users 16GB of base RAM because they so like money, its hard to imagine a company with that mindset walking away from the EU market over this. That said, if they did, I would well imagine it would be no more then a few years. Apple would eventually come back as they would be gifting a significant market share and revenue to their competitors. The EU is to large a market to ignore, so after all the wailing and throwing lawyers at the problem, compliance with EU legislation is really Apples only choice. That is after all, how we all got USB-C on our iPhones.
 
The DMA and its objectives are not that hard to understand.
And EU doesn’t mandate zero-strings-attached sideloading.

For example, it doesn’t prevent Apple from charging business users (developers).
But if you pretend that…

- every app is 50 cents per annual install
- each year, forever (!)
- even if you make no sales from the users that have downloaded it
- except if you use our own store - where it continues to be free

…would be compliant with the legislation and its objectives, don‘t act like surprised Pikachu (as Apple and its apologists/fanboys) when you‘ll be told it‘s not and you may get fined.

Again, it’s not hard to understand.
Apple know this and were just to arrogant and stubborn to follow the rules, there way was never gonna stand in the EU
 
They might if it becomes fiscally irresponsible to stay in that market - they have an obligation to the shareholders and the corporation’s success.
Can I attend the meeting at Apple where the unnamed hapless executive is going to argue that Apple doesn't need a market with 448 milllion people as its financially irresponsible? Happy to pay for a ticket to the value of 8GB of Apple RAM.
 
The EU is just a legal mafia shaking down innocent American companies. They are specifically targeting American companies and leaving out their own super monopolistic company Spotify.
Yeap. Its a greek tragedy. If by greek you are an American CEO called Tim who heads a 3.3 Trillion dollar company and won't respect the laws of the countries you trade in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tinsoldier
Which is why I asked you - what’s your proposal then?
  • Ask the same percentage of sales from in-app sales, regardless of whether they're for physical or digital goods/services - fine with me.
  • Allow developers to choose how they process in-app sales and don't force them to go through Apple (it goes without saying in this case that if a developer is not using Apple's service, Apple shouldn't be entitled to a percentage cut of the transaction).
Prior to Apple announcing the CTF, my own proposal was for Apple to bill developers of third party app stores 27%, which then raised the question - 27% of how much exactly?
Apple has no right to demand a percentage of other companies' sales - let alone 27%.

"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"

Apple used to (and still) charge a 30% commission for use of their "App Store" core platform service.
That is the only charge (except the negligible yearly developer subscription).

The legislation mandates that Apple has to allow installation of third-party software without using that "App Store" core platform service (and its 30% commission).

Your proposal of 27% "core technology commission" is just trying to be clever and circumvent the legislation by shifting the commission to outside the designated core platform service - while maintaining the same business model and anticompetitively steering towards the App Store. In other words: A blatant attempt at circumventing the legislation and its objectives.

The App Store should just let developers keep 100% of revenue. Is that what you are basically advocating?
Not at all.
The App Store can have any revenue split Apple likes it to have.

It just should not be the only accessible way to install applications (as the DMA says).
And it should not be allowed to unfair advantage over other, competing stores (it arguably has that already by being a "first-party" service from the OS developer and being "bundled" with iOS). That includes Apple imposing a commission or fee scheme that forces alternative stores to charge developers or consumers as much or more than Apple does on its own store (e.g. the core technology fee or 27% commissions or revenue).

As long as Apple leave no room for competing stores to undercut them on price, it's not a contestable market.
 
Last edited:
DMA works differently. The company (Apple) has a compliance department that certifies that it is complying with the rules. If the EU does not deem it so, it will open an inquiry. If, during the course of the inquiry it is found to be non-complaint, they will give a notice so that Apple can correct it.

Sure, an Apple can correct what the EU deems non-compliant but that does not mean they have to provide free access to the App Store or not charge for services they provide; the DMA specifically allows pricing services as well as states there is no establishment of a right to access. The question is how will they do that?

Personally, I think opening up iOS like they have in the Mac, where a 3rd party app can be loaded without signing, the user just has to OK it is one way to comply while still being able to charge for access to the AppStore and signing, if a developer wants it.

If Apple does not take corrective action, then it will be fined. They will keep fining the company until it is compliant. If they litigate, they will keep accruing fines. Repeat offences can result in fines getting doubled.

What the fine is and what ultimately gets paid are two different things; and litigation can even decide the EU position was not valid. My point was fines sound great but the reality is often different than the headline.

If the company still does not comply, the company can be broken up.

That is going to be a challenge - how do you force a non-EU company to break up? Could teh US, for example, decided an EU company needs to be broken up? I doubt that would sit well with the EU.

You could bar them from doing business in certain markets; but that is likely to trigger retaliation by the US, as has happened in other trade issues. The current US spat over TikTok is a good example of the problems a country has forcing a breakup of a foreign company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
The App Store can have any revenue split Apple likes it to have.
It just shouldn't be the only accessible way to install applications.
You see, I can agree with straightforward and clear-cut proposals like yours that get right to the heart of the matter, even if I may not agree with what you are pushing for.

As such, I find it strange why the EU chose not to make this clear and upfront (it's probably what they have in mind as well, just that they seem to want Apple to figure it out on their own, rather than say the unpleasant part out loud). The DMA doesn't need to be fair (it is really, at its very heart, just protectionism by another name), but is it so hard for the EU to be honest about it? :oops:

What does the EU really have to lose here?
 
I read the legislation. It’s a complicated mess.

Ultimately, the play the EU is making here is to force companies (Apple) to allow third party app stores while forcing them to also maintain the security of said system. This is an absolute nightmare from a security standpoint because you have to vet every application that is hosted in those app stores, which is what Apple has done.

Like I said, it’s a mess.
Every single EU legislation about anything digital is a mess. And they choose (mostly) the same efking bureaucrats for another 5 years. Wonder if all those illegal hordes they let in enjoy the constant cookie consents on their phones.
 
From the different commentary I have read:

It sounds like what Apple needs to do world wide is to remove their current fee structure for their store. And make the CTF standard across the board… this way everyone is on equal footing and no app gets a free meal (well everyone gets the first million downloads free).

Charge maybe .15 cents. That would be what, 150k a month on a million downloads.

And put in a system that checks what Apps people have on their phone (privacy focused, no user data just checks for installed apps) so they can audit install counts.
 
Apple should just pay them out of pity. Europe has absolutely zero technical or business leadership in the world due their overly regulated markets. It’s rare to see successful startups there.
Oh wait a minute where did ARM technology come from. I guess Apple must have invented it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tinsoldier
Perhaps instead of sniffing and crying about the “spirit” of the regulations, WRITE CLEAR SPECIFIC REGULATIONS!
The spirit of the law is always a thing in EU legislation. The textualist meaning isn’t the important part
Ummm...Apple spends billions of dollars to build and maintain the iPhone, IOS, IP, etc. This is what Apple "charges itself." Getting all that for free would be giving preferential treatment to 3rd parties.
Well the apple should give us a list of the exact value for this IP. How and in what way is it not already covered in the developer fee so that a free developer pay 99$/year for 10 million downloads while a third party with outside purchase capabilities seemingly pay 1million and 99$ a year.
This take is nothing but hyperbole. No one is required to comply with intent and spirit. Unless a court decides that the words of the law mean something different, you comply with what it actually says.
This is false, everyone are required to follow the spirit of the law.
They did comply with the regulations. Apply has thousands of lawyers on staff and they spent a ton of developer and legal hours creating the code for this compliance and updating their policy to comply with this. This isn't just them flipping the bird to the EU like so many of you seem to think.
That’s the issue they tried to follow the bare minimum of the law as they perceive it, but this isn’t U.S. law standards, but European laws
This is a legitimate effort at compliance with the law. Apple's legal team read this and created this compliance. The EU is reading their law differently. The big difference is that the EU had something in mind when they wrote the law. Apple is not privy to their thinking. They only know what the law says. So, the EU folks are saying they are not in compliance. But, are they not in compliance with the law as it stands, or are they not in compliance with the EU's intent? If it is the latter, then the EU will need to update the law to match their intent before Apple will be on the line for any fines. And if that happens, Apple would have the opportunity to update their policy to match the updated law.
They aren’t compliant in both cases.

The legal interpretation techniques in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and U.S. courts differ in several ways, particularly when considering textual, systematic, and teleological aspects, as well as the use of comparative law methods.



Textual Interpretation:
  • CJEU: Tends to use textual interpretation as a starting point but does not strictly confine itself to the literal meaning of the text. The CJEU often looks beyond the text to the objectives of the EU treaties
  • U.S. Courts: Generally give primacy to the text of the law, adhering more closely to the literal and plain meaning of the words used in statutes and the Constitution.
Systematic Interpretation:
  • CJEU: Systematic interpretation involves considering EU law as a whole, ensuring that new interpretations are consistent with existing legal framework and principles.
  • U.S. Courts: Also consider the systematic aspect, ensuring that interpretations fit within the broader legal system, but they may be more focused on precedent and the consistency of judicial decisions.
Teleological Interpretation:
  • CJEU: Strongly emphasizes the purpose and objectives behind laws, particularly the overarching goals of the EU, such as integration and fundamental rights.
  • U.S. Courts: While purpose can inform interpretation, U.S. courts are less likely to use teleological reasoning as a primary method, especially if the text is clear.
Comparative Law Method:

  • CJEU: Regularly employs comparative law methods, looking at the laws and practices of member states to inform its interpretation of EU law
  • U.S. Courts: Comparative law is less commonly used and can be controversial, especially when interpreting the Constitution
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the U.S. legal system handle legal technicalities and the vagueness of language in regulations differently, reflecting their distinct legal traditions and approaches to jurisprudence.

CJEU’s Approach:

  • The CJEU often deals with legal technicalities by focusing on the purpose and objectives of EU law.
  • It seeks to interpret regulations in a way that promotes integration and effectiveness within the EU, even if the language is vague.
  • The CJEU’s interpretative methods include considering the context and intent behind a regulation, as well as the consequences of different interpretations.
U.S. Legal System’s Approach:

  • The U.S. courts tend to prioritize the plain meaning of the text, using canons of statutory interpretation to resolve ambiguities.
  • When dealing with vagueness, U.S. courts may look to legislative history or precedent to discern the legislature’s intent.
Incorrect.


Apple is not getting to put their own apps out there for free. This is the HUGE mistake that so many are making when they look at this. Apple is spending a massive amount of money developing the platform and corresponding APIs. As a business, they are entitled to be compensated for that work. It doesn't cost Apple $0 to put Apple Music on the App Store. It cost them a ton of money to build the platform that made that possible. What you are saying is that Apple should spend all the money to build the platform and APIs and Spotify should pay $0.
That what’s wrong tho, this is what you understand from how it sounds to work in the USA.


The RnD and IP costs you spend on yourself is completely irrelevant as this is true for all companies. What matters is only the fee you put at the end of the contract and if you pay this fee or not.

If apple can keep 100% of their Apple Music sales then Spotify and other competitors xD should have the same treatment. If Apple Pay’s g
 
People who keep saying that Apple should exit the EU market fail to realise the vast influence that the EU has in the global market in terms of regulations and consumer trends. Remove Apple from the EU and watch what the competitors will do with all this power. I, myself, prefer some Apple products but if Apple decides that they don't want to comply with EU regulations I don't mind switching to alternative options. I'll just grab my bucket of popcorn and sit back to observe the spectacle that will ensue.
 
Well the apple should give us a list of the exact value for this IP. How and in what way is it not already covered in the developer fee so that a free developer pay 99$/year for 10 million downloads while a third party with outside purchase capabilities seemingly pay 1million and 99$ a year.
Is Apple allowed to only break even on the App Store and not make a profit from it?
 
Apple should just pay them out of pity. Europe has absolutely zero technical or business leadership in the world due their overly regulated markets. It’s rare to see successful startups there.
Oh sweet lord of confirmation bias….

 
  • Haha
Reactions: strongy
Apple has no right to demand a percentage of other companies' sales - let alone 27%.
Of course they have the "right". The DMA doesn't address commission percentages anywhere. The DMA is supposedly about increasing competition not dictating what the various competitors are charging. And Apple is still a competitor under the DMA. Plus, the EU intentionally set the bar for being subject to the DMA so high that companies using the console model for software (just like Apple was doing) can still use it without penalty.
 
And it should not be allowed to unfair advantage over other, competing stores (it arguably has that already by being a "first-party" service from the OS developer and being "bundled" with iOS).
Ridiculous point of view. The entire package is 1st party...the hardware, the OS, the store, the developer tools. It's entirely Apple's IP and they have to bear the entire cost of making it available. Companies are supposed to be able to monopolize their own IP. And the EU hasn't actually banned other companies (like console makers) from doing so.
 
So if Apple did say "too hard, not worth it, we're going" I wonder how Apple users there would respond?

And if Apple left, that would make Android a monopoly... and we know how much EU "love" monopolies...

just another can of worms. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.