So? They doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't common. My point was simply that it's not abnormal to charge a platform fee to developers.
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
Apple clearly makes enough money of selling hardware devices, software and App Store commissions on macOS to have a very profitable business - without forcing third-party developers to sell their apps/digital goods through Apple. There’s certainly no „need“ to charge for OS updates.
But only a minority of „where the money is“, i.e. consumer spending on digital goods.
…and it gives them a value proposition of „years of free software updates included“ that helps them sell hardware.
It’s definitely anything but abnormal.
Legislators have just decided to only regulate the biggest, most important and most broadly/diversely used platforms in their specific antitrust legislation (the DMA).
…which, also, is anything but abnormal.
Particularly in competition law and antitrust legislation. Doing the same thing, exhibiting the same (or similar) business conduct does not mean that it‘s regulated, allowed or prohibited all the same. It depends on who does it. And on what market.
The argument can be made that they're unjust in the gaming industry as well, but I feel that would be broadening the scope of this too much. Before long we're going to be arguing about installing apps on car infotainment systems.
Sure, but "it's abnormal if you ignore all the other examples of it happening" isn't a rational argument.
Lack of enforcement either means:
1. Apple doesn't care about enforcing its rights to limit API access in the case of jailbreaking
OR
2. Apple does not have any the right to prevent access to APIs that exist within software that it has already sold
I believe Apple is a litigious company and will take great pains to protect its IP, I think that 2 is the correct interpretation because it already sold the software, the APIs are already in consumers hands. What Apple is trying to do with the CTF is charge devs to access features of devices customers have already paid for.
Devs pay for access because it makes things easier, in the case of iOS, it is often easier and devs have wider reach if they have their apps in the real App Store.
Devs don't want to only have jailbroken iOS devices as a target as that is a tiny market. So they pay to be in the App Store.
Each platform may or may not be paid for access and requires its own consideration:
- AppStore - access can be gated behind a fee because it is Apple's store and hosting and distributing Apps costs money, my arguments around third party apps and web distribution are not applicable here
- Unreal Engine - access can be paid because, again, it has not already been sold to end users, it is not sold to end users but sold to game devs.
- DirectX is not charged for because it is built in to Windows. Game devs don't pay extra to MS to access DirectX, Unreal doesn't have to pass on a fee to MS due to the costs of building Unreal on DirectX
Why is it nonsense? Does Apple incorporate the cost of the API development into the cost of an iPhone or does it not?
As I said above, Apple has already sold the implementation of the APIs to consumers in the form of an iPhone with iOS.
I suspect there is no point in continuing arguing this with you. I've linked you the website, included a screenshot, and you've had multiple members explain it to you. You can't point anywhere in the Developer Program Agreement where it says "includes a license to use Apple's intellectual property". So no, I do not agree that it is a fact that Apple gives "all of the tools and licenses for third party developers..." when they pay the $99 fee. All that said, I will try one more analogy before giving up.
My family are members of our neighborhood swimming pool. The rules I agreed to when we joined the pool stated that to become members and have "full use" of the pool, we have to pay an annual fee. It also says if we bring guests, we will be charged extra. I can't just bring guests in and claim "the rules say I have full use of the pool, and I consider full use to include bringing guests, so I'm not paying the guest fee." Even if I really, really want the annual fee to cover guests, it doesn't. That costs extra. And if I sneak guests in and get caught, then the pool can revoke my membership. (Sound familiar, Epic?)
And guess what, the rules also state that certain members DON'T have to pay for guests (board members and members who have been dues-paying for over 20 consecutive years). That doesn't mean that the pool isn't allowed to charge anyone for bringing guests.
I'm sure you'll come back and say "but that's different because iOS isn't a pool". But, both have a signed agreement that explain the rules and the instances when additional money is owed and when it isn't.
That's just begging the question combined with a false dichotomy.
Weird, because we discussed it a few months ago.
"First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."
Nothing about it has any legal or rational basis. It's hard to respond to something so fundamentally flawed.
What are the other options?
If Apple has a copyright claim that means that what Cydia is doing is illegal they aren't enforcing it. The alternative is that Apple doesn't have a copyright claim that they could use to halt Cydia's operations as what users and devs are doing is fair use.
You didn't link the court decision, how was I supposed to know it was that one. In which case we have already discussed that case to death why should we get into that one again?
I claim that Apple has already charged for the development of the APIs that exist on device. I further claim that when Apple sold the device to a user that the user gained a copy of the API implementations. Since we know from the Oracle v Google trial that API interfaces aren't copyrighted I believe this means that Apple can't charge devs again to access APIs on device. They can charge for the tools that facilitate that access but I don't believe they can charge for that access.
I disagree with platform monetization where the platform has already been sold to the end user and I also oppose the continued trend away from owning anything. I think people should be able to own and modify software they own so that they can keep it running when the developer stops supporting it, so that they can install other software that works with that software.
...to develop, build and distribute apps through the App Store.
I agree there's no point in continuing arguing this unless you can name what "IP" would not be included.
Unless I've missed something, I've just read a vague mentioning of "IP" that's excluded from you?
It's certainly not "patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets".
It's only the right to market and sell digital goods and services that is not included.
It's only that one right that is impacted due to obligations imposed on Apple by the DMA on them (for apps distributed through Apple's App Store. Which, as established, costs a developer only $99 a year).
That is far from Apple being forced to "give away its IP for free" as you, extremely generalising, claim.
I mean... again: there's far fewer people, consumers and businesses depending on that pool than on App Stores. It's not as if there's a nationwide duopoly for pools, not as if your neighbourhood pool and a second pool serve 95% of all pool revellers in the entire nation.
But to catch that ball and run with it...
That still doesn't mean you can discriminate as you want.
Could your membership rules say...
"People of colour pay $100 to join the pool and/or are prohibited from jumping into the water.
Whereas white caucasians pay nothing and/or are allowed to jump into it"?
They could. Why not? But that doesn't mean that such discriminatory rules is going to stand in the face of the law. Regardless of who built the pool and made the rules.
It that a very far-fetched comparison? Certainly.
App store commission fees and terms are something very different and not racism.
But legislators may decide to deem both of them unjustified differentiation.
And outlaw them - even when they've been long-standing rules.
So is comparing it to only tangentially related industries yet here we are.
Does Costco charge itself slotting fees?
Despite your claims as well apples IP is being given away.
We can just plain disagree on this point.
It‘s subject to such regulation. A supermarket isn‘t an App Store - and not a monopoly or duopoly that serves 95%+ customers nationwide. The supermarket comparison is silly - cause Costco has nowhere near the monopoly power Apple has.
Are you joining surferfb in not answering what type or form of IP is (allegedly) being given away? 😉
I’m only reading „IP is given away, they have to give away their IP for free“.
Well, what IP? Can’t you just name it clearly?
What IP are they forced to „give away“ that they aren’t (voluntarily!) granting access/use of as part of their paid developer subscription already?
Again: the developer subscription provides all of the tools and access to IP to develop, build, publish and distribute apps for iOS - and make money from it. And I haven’t heard of the EU taking any with Apple charging that developer subscription price. Apple clearly charge for access and licensing their IP.
Last edited:
Does Costco have a monopoly on distribution of bulk toilet paper?
It has a monopoly on Costco bulk toilet paper the same way apple has with iOS apps.
Apple is just one business out of hundreds serving customers.
Their App Store is apples intellectual property. It doesn’t belong to Samsung or oppo or…
You know exactly what it provides and your claim that apples ip is paid for multiple times is not valid.
Apple charges for ip usage the same as other businesses.
…and access to that it is not being given away for free. App review, notarisation and distribution of third-party apps through that store is paid for by a the $99 yearly developer fee.
Neither is access to Apple’s in-app purchasing mechanism „given away“. Developers pay a sales commission on sales revenue obtained through it.
Well, do you though?
Why don’t you just spell out then?
Or are you going to continue being evasive and not name it?
Where/when did I make that claim?
Most third-party developers pay just once (their developer subscription fee) a year and that’s it. It includes all the tools and access to Apple‘s IP to develop, build and distribute apps through Apple‘s App Store.
Last edited:
I feel it‘s more that while $99 per developer per year probably doesn’t come close to covering the costs of running the App Store, Apple was willing to keep it low because they know the billions of dollars in app revenue would more than make up for it.
So maybe to your point, it’s a “yes, but asterisk asterisk asterisk“ kind of scenario. It’s all one big equilibrium. Change one part of the deal, and don’t be surprised when every other part of said deal (however implicit) changes in response.
For example, Apple is apparently fine with users upgrading less often (plus they are content to support their devices longer) because they know they will continue to earn by way of service subscriptions, app revenue and Apple Pay (just to cite a few examples of how Apple is able to continue monetising users on their platform). Remove them (like banks being able to skirt around Apple Pay) and of course Apple’s behaviour will adjust accordingly. It could take the form of even higher prices in the future, for instance, and Apple has certainly shown they will not shy away from passing on added costs to consumers, especially in the EU. 🙃
Or maybe Apple will raise the annual developer fee in the future. I think it’s still early days, and many things can still change in response to this “new normal”.
When a shady corporation like epic can open an App Store it is absolutely being given away for free. The $99 year is for the developer materials and such and not the continuing running the app on the iPhone. Even though you know exactly what the developer fees cover you still purposefully obfuscatethe intent.
In an alternate App Store? They pay the 15%/30%?
Purposely being coy about it. Why don’t YOU spell it out.
But not the running of the app in the App Store. That’s on the end user.
The difference is that Costco (for all intents and purposes) makes Costco bulk TP. Does Apple make all iOS Apps?
So you changed from the item itself to the creation of the item. Interesting. Apple owns the app store like Costco owns it’s warehouses.
Isn't that the argument you're making? What's the difference between Costco TP and Sam's Club TP?
Moreover, Costco owning a warehouse doesn't prevent Sam's from opening one. Weird, right?
And I'll point out that Android exists across the street
And you'll point out that the fact Android exists doesn't matter because developers deserve access to iOS users just because
And Micro will chime in that the $99 developer fee clearly allows developers to do whatever they want with Apple's IP because free apps don't pay anything
And I7 will point out that's not how licensing works
And Micro will ignore that and state it's a fact that the $99 developer fee clearly allows developers to do whatever they want with Apple's IP, and even if it didn't, Apple makes enough money selling hardware so their property rights don't matter
And I'll reply that the Ritz Carlton has made too much money and so I deserve free access to their pool without staying in the hotel
And you'll reply that my analogy is broken because there is a lot of competition in the hotel space
And around and around we'll go 😂
Last edited:
You still haven't told us what IP is and isn't included in that license btw. Not that I could find it.
But I agree, we've been arguing in circles with broken analogies and telling each other "No that not how it works!" for how many pages now? It's all blurred together to me. We disagree, none of us are giving an inch, not much point in continuing besides trying to look smarter than each other.
Though, none of that changes the fact that Apple's business model is exploitative. Legal or otherwise.
Just like the existence of the iOS App Store doesn’t prevent another App Store from opening up — eg google playstore. Yeah it’s weird. Tiurensrguement which I disagree with is the iOS App Store is a monopoly that should be regulated and opened up. Obviously monopoly in regional definition. Eu crafted the dma. The dept of justice is set to sue apple but good luck with that.
Mind explaining how I can install the Google Play Store on my iPhone then?