You can’t and that’s the point. There is no entitlement to use the iOS app store as you please. The vendor doesn’t have to help either. Just like Costco cant be forced to sell Sam’s club tp.
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 think I needed to come out and say it, but the IP is iOS. Apple owns iOS and licenses it to end users. As far as I am concerned, forcing Apple to allow third parties to use the APIs included in iOS that Apple developed, in a way Apple doesn't want them to, without compensating Apple for it, is a theft of their intellectual property. Doesn't matter if Apple lets some use it for free, or other platforms allow developers to use it for free, or you paid $99 to have access to the developer program. Apple owns iOS, Apple owns the APIs they developed, that means Apple should get to set the rules. Anything else is theft as far as I am concerned.
To use another imperfect analogy, imagine I write a sci-fi series set in a universe I develop, with characters, and spaceships, and races, and technology created by me. I start a fan club that costs $99 a year to be a member of. I say "Fan club members are allowed to write fan fiction, make fan art, and even make fan movies using the universe, setting, technology, and characters I created - but they can't charge for the content they create. If a fan club member wants to charge for what they create, they have to agree to a separate agreement with me, and I get 15/30% of whatever they sell, and they have to sell it in my store, and only my store."
Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think any of you would be arguing that because you paid $99 a year to join the fan club, and I allow members who don't charge to use my intellectual property for free, that means you could sell a novel using my characters, setting, etc. without compensating me for my intellectual property, or that the $99 fee was proper compensation because others get to use it for free. I don't think you'd say "well you make $200 million a year off of selling your books, so you don't need the extra revenue from licensing your IP to others." I doubt you'd support the government coming in and saying "it doesn't matter that you don't want porn stories written that star your characters, you're not allowed to prevent others from using your IP to write porn stories, and while you don't have to sell the porn using your IP in your store, you have to allow other stores to sell it if they want."
But that's exactly what is happening here. The EU is demanding that Apple license its intellectual property in a way Apple would prefer not to.
And yes, before you say it, the EU is fully within their rights to say "in the EU, Apple doesn't get to set the rules for their intellectual property". I just think that is wrong, both from a good governance perspective as well as morally, absent an extremely compelling reason. And having a minority share of the smartphone OS market is not a compelling reason TO ME, and will never be a compelling reason TO ME. (And no, the fact that they make the majority of revenue doesn't make it a more compelling reason - it means the market prefers their approach and they are being properly rewarded for it). A lot of you disagree. I think this will result in worse products and features for everyone, but definitely will result in worse products and features for EU citizens. I hope I'm wrong!
And with that, barring specific requests, I will try to refrain from further commenting in the thread to save us all time and energy (although no promises!) .
This is where we're getting our wires crossed! I am not expecting Apple to have other stores in theirs. I just want to be able to walk across the street to Sam's without buying a new metaphorical house in order to do so.
Nobody wants a third party store on Apples store they just want the option to install software from other stores on the hardware that they paid Apple for.
Sam’s will force you to buy a house(club fees). You just can’t enter on your own free will.
Hey, this looks like fun. Apple's 'property boundary' in this metaphor is iOS, not the App Store. It'll probably void your warranty, but I'm pretty sure you can install a version of Android on your iPhone. So you can install software from other stores on hardware you've paid Apple for.
Of course, that isn't what you want. What you want is to have your cake and eat it, too. First, you're conflating developers' interests and consumers' interests, and these are very much not the same thing.
Developers want to be able to have everything great about iPhones and iOS, but also want to be able to side load software to run on iOS without participating in the costs and controls that are currently required when accessing iOS via Apple's App Store. What's daft about all that is the willful obliviousness to the fact that forcing Apple to allow that will actually ruin many of the things that are currently great about iPhones and iOS, and it will actually reduce consumer choice.
Lost in this conversation is a real understanding of where consumer choice exists. Right now (at least outside of the EU), consumer choice exists when purchasing a smartphone.
Consumers can choose an Android phone, which follows the old Windows/PC business model that separates the creation of hardware from creation of the OS, and also has much looser controls on how you can install apps on that OS. Like the old Windows/PC model, there are downsides to that option, including privacy, security, and even software/hardware compatibility.
Alternatively, the consumer can choose an iPhone running iOS, which comes as a bundle, and has tighter controls on installation of apps. Many people choose this because they want the tighter privacy, security, and compatibility controls. The downside is that you can't keep iOS and later choose to go outside of that closed system to source your apps. You can, however, keep the hardware and install a different OS, if you really want to.
Forcing Apple to make iOS more like Android reduces consumer choice by taking away the option to have a device with the closed OS. Developers want access to iPhone users. It's a more lucrative market. The problem is that many developers that currently comply with Apple's consumer protections to gain access to those consumers would gladly go the side-loading route if given the opportunity, so that they can save money by reducing quality control in app development and/or implement more predatory practices that are prohibited in the App Store.
As a result, consumers who currently have access to apps whose developers are forced to play nice by Apple (things like asking permission before tracking location or cross-platform activities, etc.) will lose that access. If consumers want to continue using those apps, they'll no longer have access to a version with consumer protections. Who will maintain consumer protections then? The EU? Rather than improving consumer experience by "increasing competition," it will actually lower the bar, decrease options for consumers and decrease competition for access to those consumers.
More important to vote at the ballot box. Those elected will deal with any anticompetitive behaviour as they have previously i'm sure.
Or you know the other operating system where it apparently isn't beyond the pale to install software outside the app store.
What this fails to address is that the developers themselves are also consumers. They are consumers of hosting and distribution services, not unlike how Apple is a consumer of shipping services like FedEx or UPS.
In that sense, there is zero competition. While ProbablyDylanHardware(PDH) can choose DHL, FedEx, or UPS to send a widget to a customer across the Atlantic with, ProbablyDylanSoftware(PDS) cannot choose how to deliver their software over there. PDS cannot choose a software distribution service with more favorable rates, policies, terms, ethics, or whatever else, because such a service is not permitted to exist.
Unless we only want consumer rights for some consumers. How would we pick and choose what class of consumer has whatever arbitrary consumer protection?
Right. It's important to remember that iOS was Apple's first shot at starting fresh on a platform and OS designed for an always-connected internet age. Central to its development was the question of how to make an internet-connected personal computing device actually not be a hot mess of vulnerabilities. So they made a platform that initially had no app store at all. Then they sorted out a more secure way to allow third-party software on the platform, while also making it more consistent with Apple's intuitive UI and also less prone to compatibility conflicts, either with hardware or other software running on the platform.
MacOS has its roots going back to the the old days when software came on physical media and was far less vulnerable to constant attack. MacOS was still always more restrictive with third-party software than Windows, and has crept ever closer to the iOS model since then. It's also true that there are major Mac app developers that would have to do better by their customers if they had to go through the Mac App Store to get to those customers. For instance, imagine if you could click on "manage your subscriptions" to cancel your plan with well-known photo editing software developer that is currently known to make that process far more convoluted.
How about we start with using a traditional definition of consumer instead of the made up one you propose here. B2B isn't consumer.
Instead of a made up company, in the real world Netflix can choose to deliver their software to many different stores and platforms.
They wouldn't let you do it. They would have all of their customers manage their account outside of the app store to avoid the 30% gouge, just like Netflix, Spotify etc do now on iOS.
Really, this one goes back to the Costco metaphor. You want access to Costco's customers for your goods, but don't like their terms? You can sell through Sam's/WalMart. Or you could try to get government to force Costco to give you space in their store or parking lot to set up your own shop, so you can get to the customers they draw in, but 'avoid their whatever percent gouge,' e.g. markup (which pays for all the things Costco does that draw those customers in). Somehow everyone sees how that would be ridiculous.
Apple sells iPhones all over not-Europe. If the EU pushes so hard that Apple is only able to sell something there that is no longer actually an iPhone, they might have to withdraw from that market. One wonders what those other customers over there would do at the ballot box if they couldn't buy iPhones any more?
Last edited:
Of course they can. But if they sell in the EU, they have to abide by EU terms. Sound familiar?
But you're not just "walking across the street". You're forcing Costco to let Sam's Club open a store in a shopping center Costco owns, then saying "how dare Costco try to charge rent to Sam's Club for having a store in the Costco Shopping Center - all the other shopping centers don't charge rent AND the owner of Sam's Club already pays the Costco Membership Fee which OBVIOUSLY also covers rent even though nothing in the membership agreement says it does"
All while conveniently ignoring that 1) Costco owns the shopping center 2) all the customers are in the shopping center because Costco built it and maintained it for over a decade 3) there's ALREADY a shopping center across the street where anyone can build a store, or even sell in the parking lot out of their car's trunk, you just don't want to walk across the street because you prefer Costco and 4) you knew ALL of this when you decided to start shopping at Costco in the first place and still decided to shop at Costco.
Man, I knew I should have cut out that line in my last post about not responding in this thread anymore 😂
You're right, it does! And it's in Apple's interest to continue doing business in Europe, even if the terms of doing business there aren't preferable, because they have customers they can and want to sell their phones to. Kind of like my made up company selling made up software to made up customers.
Hey, we can agree on that point, I've told myself the I need to stop engaging on this thread at least twice now.
It's no more or less exploitative than Sony or Nintendo's, and so far, nobody seems to have an issue with that.
Downloaded apps can run indefinitely on iPhones.
And their developer can update thrm, as ling as they pay the developer subscription.
No, you do, with vague notions of „IP“ that you can’t explain.
They‘re not using Apple’s In-app purchasing.
No sale through Apple
I am going to, don‘t worry.
Agreed 👍🏻
It’s not. No more than restrictions on car operation (such as road speed limits) are taking away your ownership or right of operating a car.
Specific restrictions on discriminatory pricing aren’t theft.
Neither am I taking your life or freedom away when I‘m gently pushing you out of my or shoving you.
There’s no doubt and I agree that Apple’s rights are somewhat (gently) restricted.
But that doesn’t mean their IP is „given away“, let alone „theft“ in the generalising and extremely hyperbolic way you try to portray it.
👉🏻 Ownership rights are not totally and absolutely limitless - and specific lawful boundaries or restrictions imposed on them do not mean your ownership is negated, „taken away“ or „stolen“.
…whereas you and other detractors of the DMA seemingly with no end are conveniently ignoring that…
Costco does not have 50% or more of revenue market share, they aren’t a duopoly with Sam‘s Club for many different goods. Costco toilet paper isn’t the only brand of available toilet paper, and neither is it part of a duopoly. Costco may have a monopoly on Costco-branded toilet paper - but their paper isn’t the only or one of only two brands being available in the whole country.
And neither is Costco‘s toilet paper tied to (notarised) for use on only Costco-developed toilet bowls or seats.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Using my example, if the government said “If you want to sell your novels in the EU, you must allow others to write stories in the sci-fi universe you created without paying you what you think it’s worth” I would consider that theft, not a “gentle restriction” of my rights.
Here the government is saying “If you want to sell iPhones in the EU you must allow third parties to use your intellectual property, without paying you what you think it is worth.” I consider that theft.
If the EU wasn’t fighting the CTF, I might agree with you that it’s a restriction, not theft. But it’s very clear the EU has a problem with Apple being compensated for its IP by developers who aren’t using the App Store. And before you say it, the developer fee is not a license for Apple’s IP.
Again, we’re not ignoring those facts. As I’ve said at least three times now, I DON’T THINK THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. It doesn’t make the EU’s position morally acceptable. If Android had the same restrictions as iOS you’d have a better argument, but Android does everything you want.
Consumers ALREADY have a choice about which model they prefer. Over 70% choose Android in the EU. Most of the rest choose iOS. Both markets are served. But the EU is forcing Apple to accept Android’s model, which as @applezulu eloquently explained will make things worse for consumers.
The user is responsible for purchases which includes apples commissions. Take that away and you’re left with the ctf fee.
You can’t explain it either, except with a “no they are not”.
Hence CTF.
Perfect.