I didn't know I could distribute iOS apps to iPhones on Android! Mind showing me how?
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.
EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't know I could distribute iOS apps to iPhones on Android! Mind showing me how?
a phone is a device not a computer. it is meant as a tool that you dont need a large amount of tech knowledge to use and keep running. so they locked it down and protected the naive users largely from themselves.
then extended to allow apps, they did it in a controlled, vetted way. Different to the do-anything-you-want cowboy PC way.
just because iOS software costs more is no answer.
In fact, many iOS versions of desktop software are significantly cheaper with only a few hard core features removed.
you dont NEED software. you WANT. there's a huge difference.
If you want cheap/free software, buy an Android phone if you can get a better deal.
👉 Why do patents have an expiry date?
Because monopolies and monoculture over the long run are bad for competition, potential competitors, innovation and ultimately consumers.
The right to monetise as you see fit, can be justified as reward for your innovation for a certain period of time. But not forever. Long-running monopolists get complacent and adopt rent-seeking behaviour to the detriment of society and the greater economy.
👉 You can think of the legislation as conceptually similar to Apple's patent (their exclusive right of sales/monetising) expiring.
They've been rewarded more than handsomely, becoming the biggest company in the world as a result. Now it's about time the balance is readjusted to allow third parties to reap the benefits of their own innovation - by restricting Apple's ability to "tax" them, compete against or undercut them with inferior products/services.
I'll wholeheartedly support your right to sell your better self-driving software if and once Tesla
- had had a long-running, entrenched monopoly or duopoly in cars
- and abuses its position to restrict your market access by anticompetitive pricing/access terms
- and (Tesla) have no or limited competition that you can sell your software to (they may have their own automated driving features and collude with Tesla).
At least over the long run. It's good for economy and society (and you) if you're able to do it.
Given the market conditions (and concentration) in cars, it's a non-issue though. But if Tesla were to stall or deny your market entry or success just so they can make more money by anticompetitively maintaining the dominance of their own inferior product long-term, regulating Tesla seems appropriate.
Your superior product deserves to compete (fairly).
And society deserves to enjoy the benefits of it.
Last edited:
You're kind of splitting hairs here. Hey Siri, what's a computer?
A computer is a machine that can be programmed to automatically carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations (computation). Modern digital electronic computers can perform generic sets of operations known as programs. These programs enable computers to perform a wide range of tasks. The term computer system may refer to a nominally complete computer that includes the hardware, operating system, software, and peripheral equipment needed and used for full operation; or to a group of computers that are linked and function together, such as a computer network or computer cluster.
Somebody should tell the MacOS team that they have allowed a cowboy PC way onto the platform they clearly market as safe and easy.
I love this point. Apple brought in $383.29B last year. For perspective, NASA's SLS is only expected to cost ~$4B.
My guess is this ends with Apple waiting for the EC to make their last official declaration and then appeals this to a court of rational adults. It's almost a given that the court will rule that by trying to enforce the DMA this way it will be a WTO violation of TRIPS. Under the TRIPS agreement an IP holder cannot be forced to give away IP without fair compensation. The proposed CTF by Apple is more than fair and would fall under FRAND even though it technically would not have to as nothing in the DMA requires it to.
The European Commission was warned early on during the drafting of the law that compelling the distribution of IP without compensation was a WTO violation and they adjusted the final law accordingly. Margrethe Vestager leaves her post in November and my gut is this is just a parting shaft to Apple to tie them up with a legal headache that will drag on for a couple years but ultimately will be overturned.
The European Commission was warned early on during the drafting of the law that compelling the distribution of IP without compensation was a WTO violation and they adjusted the final law accordingly. Margrethe Vestager leaves her post in November and my gut is this is just a parting shaft to Apple to tie them up with a legal headache that will drag on for a couple years but ultimately will be overturned.
Last edited:
Hasn't the WTO dispute settlement mechanism been entirely paralysed ever since Donald Trump refused to appoint new members, which Biden has continued?
With both being on the ballot in November, it seems unlikely that this will change.
Generally US policy does not seem favourable toward the WTO at the moment, so I'm not convinced TRIPS is the deus ex machina you make it out to be.
I don't think it really matter as the ECJ will decide if the DMA as a whole (or the EC's enforcement of it) violates TRIPS. It would be more an internal EU litigation rather than an external arbitration.
Nothing is stopping you from selling your software to iOS users. Apple simply would like that you do it through their App Store, and get a cut if applicable. Which brings me to my next point.
Do you get upset that you have to go through Sony to sell a PS5 game to consumers?
I keep bringing up consoles because there are a lot of similarities between the two, and while I see a lot of fury being aimed at Apple for their supposedly unfair tax, I hardly hear a whimper when it comes to other platforms.
For one, let's say I want to be able to launch my own App Store on the Switch, where I can not only keep 100% of my own game sales, but also host other developers' games and charge them a commission. I may be able to undercut Nintendo's 30% cut because I don't have a hardware platform to manage. My proposal is going to get shot down right away, and I don't think there is anybody here who would argue that it's in any way reasonable.
And yet this is what everyone is apparently fighting for on iPhones and iPads.
Second, are game developers really fine with paying Sony and Nintendo a 30% cut when they release a game on their respective game platforms, and if so, why? I think Valve charges like 25% for games purchased via Steam, and still people use them. It just feels counterintuitive for a company like Epic to say that they are fine with Sony taking 30% of their IAP revenue from Fortnite, but suddenly it's a problem when Apple does the same thing on their iOS platform.
At the same time, I am pretty sure a company like Nintendo would do some vetting of apps at their level and I am sure there are many games that never make it to their Switch App Store for various reasons. We just don't hear about it.
Third, as a consumer, is there anyone here who really cares that 30% of that $60 you paid to access, say, Doom Eternal on the Switch goes to Nintendo instead of Bethesda, or do you just shrug and go "Not my problem, that's between the two entities to sort out?". And if so, how do you reconcile this with people suddenly being so concerned about the plight of developers on the iOS platform, when in reality, this 30% cut is nothing new, nor is it solely limited to Apple?
I hear you about applying principles within a broader context, and I still have a hard time understanding why Apple is seemingly the only one being singled out for a behaviour that is not only industry-wide, but also spanning multiple industries.
So only Apple can't charge 30% but everyone else can? Like, money is still money, so why the apparent double standard?
What I can gather, admittedly through only cursory research, is that the WTO rules are generally not directly enforceable in the EU legal order, which has been a consistent finding of the CJEU.
So external arbitration seems the only possible route, but correct me if I am wrong.
How am I supposed to do that without giving them a cut? Please explain because, as of now, there's no skirting that in one way or another.
I'm sure plenty of developers do. Different league though - Apple's only sold 4x as many iPhones last year than Sony sold the PS5 in it's lifetime.
Your argument is “I should be able to sell to their customers, using their tools, and their intellectual property, without compensating them because I want to.” I want access to your bank account. Doesn’t mean I deserve it.
Lucky for you, the EU seems to agree you should be free to do that - intellectual property rights don’t matter. But it’s not surprising almost no tech innovation comes out of Europe when that’s their stance.
Back in 2020 the ECJ set a new precedent by ruling against Hungary for violation of WTO/GATS for their education laws. It survived appeals and the courts now hold that private parties can sue the EU for violation of international law if the law violates an international agreement and they are being punished under the EU law. They just can't sue to enforce damages / liability of a violation of the international law outside of the agreement's resolution framework.
The ruling in this case is noteworthy for several reasons. On the one hand, as regards the relationship between WTO law and EU law, the ECJ has confirmed its dichotomous approach of holding that EU Member States cannot bring cases challenging the legality of EU secondary law on the basis of WTO law, but may be sued in infringement proceedings, if their own national legal acts disregard WTO law. Furthermore, it transpires from the Court’s reasoning in this case that it appears to conceive of itself as a court that – similar to a national court ensuring compliance with WTO law in the ‘internal legal order’ – is subordinated to the dispute settlement mechanisms of the WTO, rather than as a competing court on the international level.
On the other hand, this ruling is also remarkable as regards fundamental rights protection, since the ECJ has taken the view that – similarly to its controversial approach in Åkerberg – the mere applicability of an international agreement concluded by the EU seems to trigger the applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
no it's not splitting hairs. Siri only reports links related to your keywords it finds online.
we don't say "Siri, is the defendant guilty?" for the exact same reason.
It's called a phone because that was the primary function when they made it.
It was just better than the dumb phones it replaced.
But still a phone. A communication device.
well PCs have always been cowboy land devices.
regardless of platform you can install anything.
Hence people made Hackintoshes for a long time.
And many anti-virus companies did very well out of threats to these devices. Less on phones.
Well the easy way around giving Apple money is to make the app free and get users to pay outside the walled garden and put in their account details to the iOS device. Works pretty well for Office and Netflix ... and Spotify
Given how many iPhones were sold, even selling only 25% as many Playstations is still giving Sony a lot of money and total control over the software. Even down to packaging for retail. The hold the entire process in their hands and charge you for every bit.
See now you are arguing with yourself... I knew these figures too.Any data to support the assertion that Android users find it difficult to shift to iPhones?
According to Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP), the percentage of iPhone buyers who were previously Android users in the US fell from 15% in 2022 to 13% in 2023, though this is still higher than 2020 and 2021.
Android switching to iPhone highest level since 2018 - 9to5Mac
Users on Android switching to iPhone hits a 5-year high in the US as Apple says the rate is even higher in other countries.9to5mac.com
Imagine how many more Android users would move to iPhones if the changes come into effect?
But they dont tell you what Android device they went from or what Apple device they moved to.
There are indeed a large number of switchers - net to Apple - even though the EU pretends the walled garden is bad for consumers. They seem to be voted with their wallets to move there
And sometimes, a bit of pain moving, can bring a lot of benefits. So you do it once reluctantly...
Unlike the mafia, Apple actually own something they want to make money off. Not stand over someone else's property or goods. Pretty bad example wasn't it?
Yet games consoles do exactly the same thing, create the hardware and tools, let you write code with you IP and then charge you fees on each sale. What is the difference?
so you bought an Apple computer to write code (with their free tools), bought an iPhone to test the code (which you can still use as a phone) and paid an annual dev fee (which lets you put up apps for review and release if they meet the rules).
You dont even have to pay Apple any more from thereon in... make the app free and charge your users outside the store for a subscription or access. Like Office or Netflix or Spotify.
End of story.
If you want to add the convenience of in app purchases, you follow the rules of 15-30% of the app fee.
Many devs have commented on here over the years that letting Apple do all the payment hassles including refunds is well worth the fees. Imagine how much you would make if you sold the item in retail stores where you could pay for advertising materials, shelf space, shrinkage of stolen items, returns of unsold, packaging, wholesale distribution... some devs said this can chew 70-90% of the product price paid.
People dont buy phones to do everything.
Simple video editing is possible (mainly cutting/trimming end points).
Spreadsheets are maybe ok to view but not much more (try resizing a column with a finger - it's an exercise in frustration).
Making music - yeah there are a few apps for basic creation. Full DAW? Needs screen real estate and physical controls. And processing power to render.
Look at the most common apps used:
there's not a video editor or music creation app in the Top 200.
Office and Google Docs are there and Word.
Most apps are banks and social media and food services and shopping.
Stuff that could easily have been websites.
Apple aren’t singled out and they aren’t the only ones. The regulation also covers Microsoft Windows and Google Android. In other words, the three - by far - most important operating systems used by consumers.
Apple is just singling out itself with their
Intellectual property rights do matter. The DMA only covers like a handful of the biggest companies - that leaves ample room for innovation. And if anyone’s stifling competition and innovation in the sector, it’s these gatekeepers nowadays - and not the EU.
Look at the operating systems that run on the most popular computing platforms today.
iOS - US company
Android - US company
Windows - US company
macOS - US company
The DMA is really just an attempt by EU officials to slow down a handful of U.S. companies in order to give homegrown companies a heads-up.
Best case scenario - most customers choose not to engage with these DMA-required offerings from Apple, and the DMA winds up not being material to Apple’s financial picture in the long run.
The law is about competition not consumers. I do not remember seeing anything related to consumers in the DMA. I think you are conflating this with the antitrust case by DOJ. DMA is seeking to foster competition on the Appstore.See now you are arguing with yourself... I knew these figures too.
But they dont tell you what Android device they went from or what Apple device they moved to.
There are indeed a large number of switchers - net to Apple - even though the EU pretends the walled garden is bad for consumers. They seem to be voted with their wallets to move there
And sometimes, a bit of pain moving, can bring a lot of benefits. So you do it once reluctantly...
Essentially reading the case law there’s no mechanism to sue EU for violating WTO agreements.
EU law takes precedence at all times. And the DMA is enforced by the EU commission.
In CEU, the Court seemed unbothered by similar concerns. It is worth pointing out that the Court’s appropriation of WTO jurisdiction would not fit in the narrow exception that the Court has formulated to tolerate external interpretations of EU law. Namely, when the Court green-lighted the arbitration system in the Canada-EU trade agreement (CETA) it was adamant that CETA tribunals should only treat EU measures as fact, not as law. CETA tribunals could look at EU measures, to apply CETA law and assess the EU’s responsibility under it. In Opinion 1/17, the Court said that prior involvement was unnecessary, as “the Tribunal will have to confine itself to an examination of EU law as a matter of fact and will not be able to engage in interpretation of points of law… [Therefore,] the CETA Tribunal will have to apply and interpret international law, … and not EU law”.
Opinion 1/17 of 30 April 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, para. 76-77.
