EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act

[Abazigal]

There are ways they could do it but they would require some form of invasiveness. However, charging a percentage isn't new or unusual, the MPEG group does it, so does Qualcomm, so does Unreal, etc... It isn't an unheard of practice.

I think the only reasonable way they can actually make the CTF work is some form of revenue percentage cap, otherwise there are always going to be apps with low per user revenue but high user counts that won't be viable under a static per download amount. (Unless the amount is so trivial as to be not worth implementing).

I think Apple knows that the CTF isn't a system that will lead to a healthy platform, and if applied to apps in their own store it would lead to many apps switching to PWAs, which I don't think Apple wants. This is why IMO that the changes they brought didn't bring the CTF to their own store and allowed devs to continue on with the existing terms.

I feel that among other things, it speaks about the delicate balance in the App Store that nobody is acknowledging.

You are right that free apps don't pay Apple a cent, and I don't think this is an oversight. For every Facebook or Instagram that generates billions for its parent company, there is a free app by some aspiring developer who is still in high school and just wanted to get an app out there to build up his portfolio and gain some experience (for example, I use a free app that displays my bus arrival timings). I don't think there is a feasible way that Apple can attempt to have their "pound of flesh" from Meta without having indie developers also caught in the crossfire (like how do you distinguish a free app from a multi-national bank vs one released by a kid in school?).

The intent here is really to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible to incentive as many people to release apps for iOS as possible.

Instead, it is the 30% from paid apps (more specifically, freemium games) which make up the bulk of App Store revenue and make it worthwhile for Apple to support all these free apps. Some may argue that it is unfair for a company like spotify to pay so much to Apple, and I would liken it to how people who earn more in a country tend to pay more tax (and the tax revenue then goes towards programmes which aid the poor). That Spotify has to pay so much to labels as well is a problem with their business model (who asked them to enter the market knowing it was unsustainable in the first place?), not with Apple.

Of course a developer who makes more money would want to keep as much of it for himself and pay Apple as little as possible. It's human nature. But would you then be okay with a millionaire not paying his fair share to government coffers using the same logic?

If you want a system where Epic gets to keep 100% of iAP revenue from Fortnite, then maybe one way Apple could make up the shortfall would be to increase the annual developer fee (maybe double or triple it across the board for starters). Again, barely a rounding error for a company like Facebook, but you just raised the bar of entry for new developers, and it's the vitality and vibrancy of the App Store (and consumers) who suffer ultimately.

I don't think the App Store should be a loss-making venture.

And seriously, is there anyone here who really cares that games like Genshin Impact or Candy Crush are keeping only 70% instead of 100%?

 

[bcortens]

I feel that among other things, it speaks about the delicate balance in the App Store that nobody is acknowledging.

You are right that free apps don't pay Apple a cent, and I don't think this is an oversight. For every Facebook or Instagram that generates billions for its parent company, there is a free app by some aspiring developer who is still in high school and just wanted to get an app out there to build up his portfolio and gain some experience (for example, I use a free app that displays my bus arrival timings). I don't think there is a feasible way that Apple can attempt to have their "pound of flesh" from Meta without having indie developers also caught in the crossfire (like how do you distinguish a free app from a multi-national bank vs one released by a kid in school?).

The intent here is really to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible to incentive as many people to release apps for iOS as possible.

Instead, it is the 30% from paid apps (more specifically, freemium games) which make up the bulk of App Store revenue and make it worthwhile for Apple to support all these free apps. Some may argue that it is unfair for a company like spotify to pay so much to Apple, and I would liken it to how people who earn more in a country tend to pay more tax (and the tax revenue then goes towards programmes which aid the poor). That Spotify has to pay so much to labels as well is a problem with their business model (who asked them to enter the market knowing it was unsustainable in the first place?), not with Apple.

Of course a developer who makes more money would want to keep as much of it for himself and pay Apple as little as possible. It's human nature. But would you then be okay with a millionaire not paying his fair share to government coffers using the same logic?

If you want a system where Epic gets to keep 100% of iAP revenue from Fortnite, then maybe one way Apple could make up the shortfall would be to increase the annual developer fee (maybe double or triple it across the board for starters). Again, barely a rounding error for a company like Facebook, but you just raised the bar of entry for new developers, and it's the vitality and vibrancy of the App Store (and consumers) who suffer ultimately.

I don't think the App Store should be a loss-making venture.

And seriously, is there anyone here who really cares that games like Genshin Impact or Candy Crush are keeping only 70% instead of 100%?

You're right that it is a very delicate balance, however I don't think the CTF is going to fly because the way it solves it amounts to steering devs into Apple's App Store.

I actually think the DMA is useful but not the only legislation we need. Governments really need to start cracking down on unethical monetization FTP systems in apps. These systems are unethical for a variety of reasons but that isn't really a DMA issue unfortunately.

The problem with the current system is that Facebook should pay more than many other devs that pay nothing. Why should someone like Marco Arment who makes Overcast pay more to Apple than Facebook? It makes no sense.

Sure it lets Apple exploit the whales in Free2Play games just as much as the devs of those games do but it actually makes Apple look pretty bad IMO.
Some research suggests over 50% of App Store revenue is gaming and most of that is likely the horrid F2P games. This is the revenue Apple is trying to protect. It makes Apple complicit in this scumminess and is one of the primary reasons I have no time for Apple's attempt to protect this revenue.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

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.

Did you miss the part where I paid them for the necessary tools? Or the part where I paid them for what's essentially a license to develop for their platform, in the form of a developer account?

 

[I7guy]

If it is a facade , it’s the worst on ever constructed and horrible at helping consumers…. How strange it isn’t about the consumer but customers across the board.
View attachment 2389919

It is a pretty poorly constructed facade. Of course i/we could be wrong about this, or I/we could be right.

 

[I7guy]

Because it’s not about the consumer. Read the DMA text and it tells you quite literally to your face it’s about the market itself as the principal of competitive markets

Look att the common technology products and companies today that relies on ASML lithography to bring the world the most advanced chips.

• iPhones
• MacBooks
• Intel processors
• AMD CPU,GPU and APUs
• Nvidia chips
• Qualcom chips

9 out of 10 Fortune 500 companies use SAP to ensure business and process excellence.
That means Microsoft, Apple, Costco, Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, Ford, Walmart , Google etc etc

Given SAP solutions support 82% of Forbes Global 2000 companies and over 77% of global transaction revenue flows through SAP systems.

So no Europe isn’t trying to give homegrown companies a heads-up. Considering the DMA literally gives American companies a gigantic advantage to step in

Perhaps but the iOS AppStore is just one of many services targeted.

The ex-ante obligations on 'Gatekeepers' are aimed at ensuring fair and open digital markets.

The DMA will capture the following CPS:

• online intermediation services,
• online search engines,
• online social networking,
• video-sharing platform services,
• number-independent interpersonal communication services (e.g WhatsApp, IMessage),
• operating systems,
• web browsers,
• virtual assistants,
• cloud computing services,
• online advertising services

This appears to be about the developers no matter the verbiage.

 

[I7guy]

It's not a facade. Think about how much business is facilitated between third parties on mobile computers today. It's mind-boggling. The goal of this legislation is to create an equal playground for competition on these platforms.

It’s mind boggling there is this contingent that applauds this. But oh well, different strokes for different folks. As I said earlier after many years and thousands of posts the exact same thing is being debated; oh that poor horse.

 

[surferfb]

Did you miss the part where I paid them for the necessary tools? Or the part where I paid them for what's essentially a license to develop for their platform, in the form of a developer account?

Apple is saying "the cost for use of our tools, technologies, and services that enable you to build apps is currently paid for as a part of our 15/30% cut from App Store sales. You don't want to sell in the App Store - fine, but we need to be compensated for those tools, technologies, and services."

And it's Apple's intellectual property you are using (Apple's APIs, Apple's OS, Xcode etc.) that Apple has a right to be compensated for. Just because you bought an iPhone and a Mac and a developer account doesn't mean you've paid them for that any more that buying an iPhone and a Mac entitles you to an iPad for free.

What you are saying is "I don't want to pay for the tools, technologies, and services that allow me to build apps because I already bought a Mac and an iPhone." Well, I don't want to pay for a fancy new iPad Pro. But I am not entitled to steal an iPad because I bought a Mac and an iPhone. Just because you want those tools technologies and services to be covered in the price of the Mac and iPhone doesn't mean they are.

And I find it shocking that the EU is saying Apple doesn't have a right to be compensated for that. Because let's be honest, if Apple all of a sudden said "For Apps in the App Store, the first 50 cents of our cut from all purchases is for the Core Technology Fee" you all aren't going to say "oh, ok then. carry on, Apple." You're still going to be outraged that Apple dares to charge apps that aren't in the App Store.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Apple is saying "the cost for use of our tools, technologies, and services that enable you to build apps is currently paid for as a part of our 15/30% cut from App Store sales. You don't want to sell in the App Store - fine, but we need to be compensated for those tools, technologies, and services."

And it's Apple's intellectual property you are using (Apple's APIs, Apple's OS, Xcode etc.) that Apple has a right to be compensated for. Just because you bought an iPhone and a Mac and a developer account doesn't mean you've paid them for that any more that buying an iPhone and a Mac entitles you to an iPad for free.

What you are saying is "I don't want to pay for the tools, technologies, and services that allow me to build apps because I already bought a Mac and an iPhone." Well, I don't want to pay for a fancy new iPad Pro. But I am not entitled to steal an iPad because I bought a Mac and an iPhone. Just because you want those tools technologies and services to be covered in the price of the Mac and iPhone doesn't mean they are.

And I find it shocking that the EU is saying Apple doesn't have a right to be compensated for that. Because let's be honest, if Apple all of a sudden said "For Apps in the App Store, the first 50 cents of our cut from all purchases is for the Core Technology Fee" you all aren't going to say "oh, ok then. carry on, Apple." You're still going to be outraged that Apple dares to charge apps that aren't in the App Store.

I'll refer you to post# 550 where I mention that I'm more than willing to compensate Apple (or Sony!) for the relevant tools.

Apple should get paid for their tools absolutely. If the $99 they charge developers doesn't cover their expenses that seems to be an issue on Apple's part.

 

[surferfb]

I'll refer you to post# 550 where I mention that I'm more than willing to compensate Apple (or Sony!) for the relevant tools.

Apple should get paid for their tools absolutely. If the $99 they charge developers doesn't cover their expenses that seems to be an issue on Apple's part.

But Apple doesn't say the $99 covers those tools. You just want it to.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

But Apple doesn't say the $99 covers those tools. You just want it to.

So what does it cover? An arbitrary fee just 'cause? I don't put it past Tim.

Like I said, I'm more than willing to pay for the tools.

 

[visualseed]

When companies get big enough and their tech stack becomes important enough they do have to start engaging in licensing schemes that are more universally applied. FRAND patents for example are required to be licensed in very specific ways. Telecoms aren't allowed to monetize their IP in certain ways, in places where net neutrality has passed they can't charge a different commission to different websites for access to their IP for example. The DMA is the Eu taking a step towards treating gatekeeping platforms more like FRAND or telecoms than they currently are.

The idea that governments can't prevent companies from charging differently based on different customers is easily proven false by looking at telecoms, who aren't allowed to charge users who access Netflix differently to those who access Amazon Prime.

Again, I'm not even convinced that Apple could actually successfully argue that they charge for their tools and sdk using the 30/15% commission right now, given how inconsistently they have argued what that fee is for publicly and given the terms of the $99/year fee already seem to include the license to distribute commercially using the tools and SDK...

You are equating a lot of different things here that don’t apply and aren’t even related enough to make an analogy. Eg. Net neutrality has nothing to do with IP licenses.

Nothing in the DMA gives any regulatory body the authority or mechanism to regulate IP license fees and a court will eventually decide that or risk making things exponentially worse for everyone.

 

[bcortens]

But Apple doesn't say the $99 covers those tools. You just want it to.

Except if obviously has to cover SDK, IP and tooling, otherwise how does Facebook not pay anything other than this $99 fee? How does Walmart? McDonald's, Amazon?

 

[bcortens]

You are equating a lot of different things here that don’t apply and aren’t even related enough to make an analogy. Eg. Net neutrality has nothing to do with IP licenses.

Nothing in the DMA gives any regulatory body the authority or mechanism to regulate IP license fees and a court will eventually decide that or risk making things exponentially worse for everyone.

The DMA does spell out the ways in which Apple may implement its licensing fees. They cannot do so in a way that privileges their own store is the most obvious.

 

[ashdelacroix]

Microsoft?

First, they are very much affected by the regulation themselves substantially (Windows)
Second, they aren‘t much competing with Apple‘s main affected product/services, namely iPhones/iOS - and they discontinued their music streaming service. And I‘m certain they aren’t worried about Apple‘s iWork apps as competition for Office.
Third, there is little evidence of Microsoft (of all companies) being a big lobbier on this (unlike Spotify or Match).

👉🏻 It does not even make sense that it was Microsoft. Seems a misguided attempt at namedropping.


How so?

Inflated prices and lower competition mean higher VAT revenue!? Competition that lowers prices/commissions doesn‘t.

Don't assume Microsoft has been smart. Corporate lobbying is a murky business.

 

[ashdelacroix]

Let's imagine that this is fully the "WHY?" reason Apple is in the crosshairs. Microsoft is sometimes ahead of Apple as richest company in the world. "Motivating" the EU to go after Apple resulting in a windfall of free money for EU seems highly likely for them to then ask "who else could we go after and get free money?" Well, who else is among the richest in the world? "Hello Microsoft, this if your friends in the EU calling..."

Conspiracies are always fun but this one would almost certainly result in a hollow victory for Microsoft when the cross hairs shift to perhaps the very next opportunity.

"Think different"

I respectfully disagree. Don't confuse outcomes with intentions. Microsoft has been lobbying for years to shake things up via the EU Commission. Whether there is a backdraft that affects Microsoft resulting in that lobbying is quite another thing. Microsoft can, for example, make much weather out of mobile device monopolies because it doesn't have much of a stake in mobile. Besides, this isn't just about Microsoft.

 

[MilaM]

Don’t like Apple’s business practices? Vote with your wallet.

If the rules are so onerous, Apple is free to abandon the EU market and vote with the wallet of their shareholders 😝.

The EU is quasi-democratic at best.

Does Apple, or any other American business, give a damn if the countries they operate in are democratic? They don't have any qualms doing business with China.

As long as the EU remains quasi-democratic, with the most powerful body evading direct elections, I don’t consider the EU to be a legitimate body.

For a body that is not "legitimate", it's pretty powerful. So powerful in fact, that it can demand concessions from the most powerful corporations on earth 😎.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Geez there's some lazy "click the hate button" people on here today who get all upset yet offer not word of reason why they arent happy.

...whereas you are setting "shining examples" of pretending to take the high road, by ridiculing other peoples' posts with "🤣" ROFL emojis instead?

Geez, I haven't read anything more hypocritical lately.

(And no, neither was that high-spirited banter, nor was there anything remotely funny about the posts you did it to).

 

[AppliedMicro]

Because the EU is saying Apple is not allowed to monetize its IP.

Of course they are.
They are free to monetise their IP under competitive terms.
They are just becoming slightly limited in monetising with anticompetitive terms.

Can Apple charge a yearly developer subscription? No doubt.
Can they charge a yearly subscription fee for iOS or their App Store (using third-party apps)? Why not?

I love how casually y’all add “duopoly” to your arguments, because you can’t argue Apple is a monopoly. Goalposts keep moving…

Apple clearly had (and has, outside of Europe) a monopoly on distribution of iOS apps to consumers. No question about it. Android doesn't change that at all, cause customers commit to iOS by their purchase of a hardware device. Just as you commit to living somewhere by buying a house. If Walmart had a (local) monopoly in your state of California (or wherever), the fact that someone else operates similar stores in New York doesn't mean Walmart has no monopoly.

And for the overall market of mobile software applications, Apple and Google have a quasi duopoly, given their combined market share.

Don't assume Microsoft has been smart. Corporate lobbying is a murky business.

Microsoft has been lobbying for years to shake things up via the EU Commission.

Is there any credible evidence that the DMA was passed on the behest of Microsoft?
I consider this as an outlier or conspiracy theory, unless there's any substantial evidence.

 

[wbeasley]

That doesn't change the fact that being charged the CTF is another reason to keep exclusive to the store, which is still (IMO) an illegal form of steering that violates the DMA.

The EU brought the special CTF on themselves... hence it isn't "applied to all publishers (worldwide)".
Outside EU, it is still AppStore only.
So there is no CTF added because they dont need to.

Any other country who goes down this path would more than likely be charged the same fee.
This is just another whinge because Apple did what they weren't told they couldnt do.
If it is decided they cant charge the CTF or has to reduce it, will be known sometime.
It should have been known at the start.

Apple was never going to make it easy for them.

 

[wbeasley]

...whereas you are setting "shining examples" of pretending to take the high road, by ridiculing other peoples' posts with "🤣" ROFL emojis instead?

Geez, I haven't read anything more hypocritical lately.

(And no, neither was that high-spirited banter, nor was there anything remotely funny about the posts you did it to).

No, i click that because i genuinely find the posts funny.

So often they make no sense or are just one eyed EU nonsense.
Or contradictory.

And life's short so I rather a laugh than waste a thumbs down.

Since you scrutinize my reactions so closely, you would see I do actually thumbs down something I really disagree with

EDIT: I'm actually getting to the point where it is so silly, I'd rather ignore some people on here. But a few others are still engaging with the EU supporters so it's of some interest to still see what's being written.

I do find it heartening though that a tech forum has so few actually supporting the EU move. I would have thought the more radical element who want more open systems to play tech with aren't supporting this. And even more heartening that a lot of app devs support the current AppStore and fees. They are the people most constrained and yet know first hand how well it works and for reasonable fees.

 

[wbeasley]

So what does it cover? An arbitrary fee just 'cause? I don't put it past Tim.

Like I said, I'm more than willing to pay for the tools.

$99 a year is a small fee to stop fake accounts proliferating.
It's enough to stop casual entry and low enough to not stop genuine solo efforts who would struggle paying more.

 

[wbeasley]

The DMA does spell out the ways in which Apple may implement its licensing fees. They cannot do so in a way that privileges their own store is the most obvious.

do you have the document that spells this out?

i've done a quick Google for the DMA and nothing is showing up in top results... just high level wording that could be very open to interpretation still... (most articles now are various commentators putting their spin on the DMA which isnt the source material to rely on).

 

[d686546s]

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?

There's two immediate observations in response to this. First, Apple isn't being singled out, not even in the smartphone space. Both Android and the Google Play store are similarly gatekeepers, as is Windows and others.

Second, it feels to me as if you have slightly moved the goalposts here. The DMA isn't really motivated by the fact that Apple charges a 30% commission but by [edit: business practices] preventing competition. Apple can continue to charge whatever commission it wants on its store, just like Valve can charge whatever it thinks appropriate, but Apple has to allow the GOG or Epic to its Steam.

You know, in principle I think it would be good to have competing stores on consoles to increase competition. The entirety of the digital distribution model, in my opinion, could use some shake up to bring certain elements more in line with the options consumers had when the distribution model was physical -- shopping around, buying 'used' copies, etc. I would wholeheartedly welcome that.

But I stand by my point that it is necessary and proportionate to regulate Apple (and Google etc) because of the outsized role smartphones play.

Outside of work, I use my phone for everything. I use it to communicate, to shop, to pay, to navigate, to consume media and so on and so forth. I'm definitely not the only one.

I use consoles to play games. Some people may run some limited apps like Netflix on them, but overall they are single-purpose devices.

That's why I think it's important to enable competition on smartphones while caring much less about consoles. I appreciate your more principled approach, I just don't agree that it's necessary.

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.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1023263X211024991

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.

Thank you. I have not had time to read this but I will.

 

[wbeasley]

I feel that among other things, it speaks about the delicate balance in the App Store that nobody is acknowledging.

You are right that free apps don't pay Apple a cent, and I don't think this is an oversight. For every Facebook or Instagram that generates billions for its parent company, there is a free app by some aspiring developer who is still in high school and just wanted to get an app out there to build up his portfolio and gain some experience (for example, I use a free app that displays my bus arrival timings). I don't think there is a feasible way that Apple can attempt to have their "pound of flesh" from Meta without having indie developers also caught in the crossfire (like how do you distinguish a free app from a multi-national bank vs one released by a kid in school?).

The intent here is really to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible to incentive as many people to release apps for iOS as possible.

Instead, it is the 30% from paid apps (more specifically, freemium games) which make up the bulk of App Store revenue and make it worthwhile for Apple to support all these free apps. Some may argue that it is unfair for a company like spotify to pay so much to Apple, and I would liken it to how people who earn more in a country tend to pay more tax (and the tax revenue then goes towards programmes which aid the poor). That Spotify has to pay so much to labels as well is a problem with their business model (who asked them to enter the market knowing it was unsustainable in the first place?), not with Apple.

Of course a developer who makes more money would want to keep as much of it for himself and pay Apple as little as possible. It's human nature. But would you then be okay with a millionaire not paying his fair share to government coffers using the same logic?

If you want a system where Epic gets to keep 100% of iAP revenue from Fortnite, then maybe one way Apple could make up the shortfall would be to increase the annual developer fee (maybe double or triple it across the board for starters). Again, barely a rounding error for a company like Facebook, but you just raised the bar of entry for new developers, and it's the vitality and vibrancy of the App Store (and consumers) who suffer ultimately.

I don't think the App Store should be a loss-making venture.

And seriously, is there anyone here who really cares that games like Genshin Impact or Candy Crush are keeping only 70% instead of 100%?

This sums it up perfectly.

As consumers, we look at an app price and decide if we are willing to pay that or not.
Do we care what percent is paid to the dev?
Does anyone subscribe and go "well, that's 30% to Apple for the first year but only 15% from there on?"

It's sticker price that would determine most sales.
Same in retail. "Oh the store is making 30%, the wholesaler makes another 30%, the dev pays licence fees for artwork and packaging to match ... geez, the coders didnt get much"

I know this model well from running an import business years ago.
Things that cost $1 could retail for $30 if customer saw value.
I know competitors who imported the same items and charged $120 and people still bought them believing they performed better. End of the day, value is in the eye of the purchaser.

Look at clothing. The people who sit in shacks and sew stuff sometimes get 10 cents for something you pay $100+.
Is it exploitation? Yes. And we support consumerism and disposable products.

This DMA is about exploiting what Apple created and keeping all the sticker price.

No matter what fee Apple sets to vet apps (because the DMA still lets them do that to ensure system integrity and security), these people wont be happy.

 

[d686546s]

I feel that among other things, it speaks about the delicate balance in the App Store that nobody is acknowledging.

You are right that free apps don't pay Apple a cent, and I don't think this is an oversight. For every Facebook or Instagram that generates billions for its parent company, there is a free app by some aspiring developer who is still in high school and just wanted to get an app out there to build up his portfolio and gain some experience (for example, I use a free app that displays my bus arrival timings). I don't think there is a feasible way that Apple can attempt to have their "pound of flesh" from Meta without having indie developers also caught in the crossfire (like how do you distinguish a free app from a multi-national bank vs one released by a kid in school?).

That same delicate balance must exist on the Mac, on Windows and Android as well without the need to fully lock it down.

As to your second point, I frankly don't think that's an unsolvable problem. I don't have a solution at hand, but I'd be very surprised if it was impossible to distinguish apps from multi-nationals and other big companies from a small app an independent developer has released.

And in the end if you say people need to pay for IP, it seems odd to exempt billion dollar companies and yet charge the small app that's trying to make some money.

Some may argue that it is unfair for a company like spotify to pay so much to Apple, and I would liken it to how people who earn more in a country tend to pay more tax (and the tax revenue then goes towards programmes which aid the poor). That Spotify has to pay so much to labels as well is a problem with their business model (who asked them to enter the market knowing it was unsustainable in the first place?), not with Apple.

Of course a developer who makes more money would want to keep as much of it for himself and pay Apple as little as possible. It's human nature. But would you then be okay with a millionaire not paying his fair share to government coffers using the same logic?

I find that logic unconvincing and the millionaires are already not paying their fair share because keeping their free apps in the store is a crucial.

Apple isn't redistributing its revenue to the poor. The App Store is a private business undertaking to generate profit and make money for shareholders. If that vibrancy is helpful, then it's a cost of doing business for Apple.