EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act

[AppliedMicro]

Why don’t YOU spell it out.

Here we go...

the IP is iOS. Apple owns iOS

Let's agree on that.

1) The developer subscription provides all of the tools and access to Apple's IP that is needed to develop, build, publish and distribute apps for iOS - and make money from it. 👉 Their IP isn't given away for free.

What it does not include:

2) Selling digital goods/services through Apple's In-App-Purchasing system. For that, Apple charge a commission on sales revenue. 👉 IP isn't given away for free here either.

3) Marketing and selling digital goods/services to customers by other means, outside of Apple's App Store and their IAP system. That is prohibited or (in the case of marketing communication) severely restricted by Apple's developer terms.

👉 But third parties selling their own digital creations/services directly to customers without using Apple's services isn't giving away Apple's IP either.

Costco sells toilet paper.
Or alternatively: A toilet paper manufacturer rents a space in Costco to sell his toilet paper.
The toilet paper manufacturer includes a coupon or voucher in the packaging that says: "Hey, do you know our online store - we're giving you $20 for (or 20% off of) your next purchase you make through our alternative online store"

👉 Are they infringing Costco's intellectual property or forcing them to give away their intellectual property away for free? No.

Being able to sell directly to customers may be a right someone may want to charge for.
But it is not (and it is not derived from) an intellectual property - it results merely from owning the place, not from an intellectual invention of the mind.

Neither would Spotify promoting and selling its subscription infringe Apple's IP.
They made or licensed the content (not from Apple), and selling that to customers directly doesn't impact or use Apple's intellectual property. Apple's right to charge "on their turf" may be restricted - but their right to intellectual property isn't.

You may claim that Apple wants to charge for their IP only from a specific subset of business users (namely the ones that sell digital goods) in the form of a sales commission. Yeah, that may be restricted by the DMA - but it does not mean they can't charge for it in other ways - that do not anticompetitive advantages to their own competing services and don't lead to unjustified differentation.

Again: Restrictions don't mean your ownership rights are given away or stolen.

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

Apple can charge for their IP in different ways - but their way of charging has to comply with the DMA. They have a choice. The fact that they can't in every way they'd possible like to doesn't mean they're forced to give away their IP.

The sentence "Apple has so far kept the option to subscribe to the previous conditions, which do not allow alternative distribution channels at all." hints at what conclusions their investigation may arrive at.

 

[surferfb]

Here we go...


Let's agree on that.

1) The developer subscription provides all of the tools and access to Apple's IP that is needed to develop, build, publish and distribute apps for iOS - and make money from it. 👉 Their IP isn't given away for free.

Again - no we don’t agree on this point. At this point I’m going to charitably say that something must be getting lost in translation on your end.

But third parties selling their own digital creations/services directly to customers without using Apple's services isn't giving away Apple's IP either.

But they are using Apple’s services and IP in order for their app to function! How do Spotify interact with the system’s music playback controls? Using Apple’s IP. How does the sound get from the app to the headphones/speakers? Using Apple’s IP. How does their app function at all? Using Apple’s IP.

Apple is asking to be compensated for that IP if the company in question charges for digital goods or services. You can argue whether or not Apple should ask to be paid for it, but you can’t claim Spotify isn’t using Apple’s IP.

Being able to sell directly to customers may be a right someone may want to charge for.
But it is not (and it is not derived from) an intellectual property - it results merely from owning the place, not from an intellectual invention of the mind.

Neither would Spotify promoting and selling its subscription infringe Apple's IP.
They made or licensed the content (not from Apple), and selling that to customers directly doesn't impact or use Apple's intellectual property. Apple's right to charge "on their turf" may be restricted - but their right to intellectual property isn't.

How can you argue the Spotify app doesn’t use Apple’s IP? Again, the IP Apple is asking to be compensated for is iOS - not the right to sell. Spotify is using APIs developed by Apple, to work on iOS, which is owned by Apple. Those APIs and that OS are “intellectual inventions of the mind” which Apple absolutely has a right to be compensated for. Again, not saying they should ask to be, but if you say Apple doesn’t have a right to be compensated for that, you’re nationalizing Apple’s IP, or as I put it, stealing from them.

The sentence "Apple has so far kept the option to subscribe to the previous conditions, which do not allow alternative distribution channels at all." hints at what conclusions their investigation may arrive at.

Key word being option. The EU has a problem with how Apple’s existing terms, and won’t be happy until that option is taken away from Apple. Lucky for you, the EU has the right to do that. But don’t be upset when you discover is a Pyrrhic victory and using iPhones in Europe becomes just as ****** of an experience as using the web in Europe.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

Hah! Good pivot. I guess you missed the parallels there.

 

[I7guy]

Here we go...


Let's agree on that.

1) The developer subscription provides all of the tools and access to Apple's IP that is needed to develop, build, publish and distribute apps for iOS - and make money from it. 👉 Their IP isn't given away for free.

What it does not include:

2) Selling digital goods/services through Apple's In-App-Purchasing system. For that, Apple charge a commission on sales revenue. 👉 IP isn't given away for free here either.

3) Marketing and selling digital goods/services to customers by other means, outside of Apple's App Store and their IAP system. That is prohibited or (in the case of marketing communication) severely restricted by Apple's developer terms.

👉 But third parties selling their own digital creations/services directly to customers without using Apple's services isn't giving away Apple's IP either.

Costco sells toilet paper.
Or alternatively: A toilet paper manufacturer rents a space in Costco to sell his toilet paper.
The toilet paper manufacturer includes a coupon or voucher in the packaging that says: "Hey, do you know our online store - we're giving you $20 for (or 20% off of) your next purchase you make through our alternative online store"

👉 Are they infringing Costco's intellectual property or forcing them to give away their intellectual property away for free? No.

Being able to sell directly to customers may be a right someone may want to charge for.
But it is not (and it is not derived from) an intellectual property - it results merely from owning the place, not from an intellectual invention of the mind.

Neither would Spotify promoting and selling its subscription infringe Apple's IP.
They made or licensed the content (not from Apple), and selling that to customers directly doesn't impact or use Apple's intellectual property. Apple's right to charge "on their turf" may be restricted - but their right to intellectual property isn't.

You may claim that Apple wants to charge for their IP only from a specific subset of business users (namely the ones that sell digital goods) in the form of a sales commission. Yeah, that may be restricted by the DMA - but it does not mean they can't charge for it in other ways - that do not anticompetitive advantages to their own competing services and don't lead to unjustified differentation.

Again: Restrictions don't mean your ownership rights are given away or stolen.


Apple can charge for their IP in different ways - but their way of charging has to comply with the DMA. They have a choice. The fact that they can't in every way they'd possible like to doesn't mean they're forced to give away their IP.

The sentence "Apple has so far kept the option to subscribe to the previous conditions, which do not allow alternative distribution channels at all." hints at what conclusions their investigation may arrive at.

What @surferfb said. Apples IP is being given away when it is forced to accept alternative app stores, not to charge it's going rates for use of said ip or even the inability to collect on it's use of said ip from apps that run on it's platform.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But they are using Apple’s services and IP in order for their app to function!

…for which they’re paying a yearly developer subscription fee of $99.
Just like any other music player app available in Apple‘s store.

How do Spotify interact with the system’s music playback controls?

…for which they’re paying a yearly developer subscription fee of $99.
Just like any other music player app available in Apple‘s store.

Using Apple’s IP. How does the sound get from the app to the headphones/speakers? Using Apple’s IP

…for which they’re paying a yearly developer subscription fee of $99.
Just like any other music player app available in Apple‘s store.

How does their app function at all? Using Apple’s IP.

…for which they’re paying a yearly developer subscription fee of $99.
Just like any other music player app available in Apple‘s store.

Apple is asking to be compensated for that IP if the company in question charges for digital goods or services.

No - they‘re asking to be paid a commission on sales revenue after the app and its contents have been delivered to the consumers device. The sound encoding/decoding, music playback controls etc. have already been delivered to consumers’ devices.

but you can’t claim Spotify isn’t using Apple’s IP.

I don‘t.

Those APIs and that OS are “intellectual inventions of the mind” which Apple absolutely has a right to be compensated for

Yes - and for which they are compensated (see above).

Digital access to Spotify‘s song catalogue and audiobook library is not Apple‘s IP however.
Neither are digital players avatars, in-game weapons etc. in an Epic game.

👉 They are third-party developers IP - created and owned by them or properly licensed (not from Apple).

And Epic and Spotify absolutely have a right to be compensated for them. Without Apple leeching off them and imposing a 30% tax or (otherwise) denying access and communicating with customers. That‘s it. That’s the problem people are having with Apple.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apples IP is being given away when it is forced to accept alternative app stores

It‘s not „given away“, because
1. the source code isn‘t made public.
2. designs are not allowed to be copied by others
3. Apple can charge for it

not to charge it's going rates for use of said ip

The going rate is $99 for a developer subscription - which includes everything needed to develop, build and distribute apps. Even on Apple’s App Store. And developers distributing outside of Apple’s App Store still have to pay that.

Hence their IP is not given away.

 

[surferfb]

…for which they’re paying a yearly developer subscription fee of $99.
Just like any other music player app available in Apple‘s store.

I’ll say it one last time: joining the developer program and paying the fee does not include a license to use Apple’s IP just because you want it to or think that it should.

I’m done engaging with you on this point unless and until you find language in the Terms and Conditions of the Developer Program or somewhere Apple has said that aligns with your interpretation.

There’s no point in debating someone who argues the sky is green.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I’ll say it one last time: joining the developer program and paying the fee does not include a license to use Apple’s IP

It does:

I didn't think I needed to come out and say it, but the IP is iOS

The developer subscription and the end user agreement includes the tools and license for Apple’s IP („iOS“, as you said yourself) to develop, build and distribute iOS apps, and have them use/interface with Apple’s APIs.

You’re rehasing your vague notion of „Apple‘s IP“ every which way. Yet you fail or refuse again, again and again to explain what „Apple‘s IP“ is, what access or license the developer subscription gives to Apple‘s IP and what it doesn‘t.

joining the developer program and paying the fee does not include a license to use Apple’s IP

👉 What does the developer program include then?

👉 When you join the developer program, develop a music player app for iOS and distribute through Apple's App Store. Are you using Apple's IP? And what allowed you to use Apple's IP?


Here you have the answer, straight from the source:

"Join the Apple Developer Program to reach customers around the world on the App Store for all Apple platforms. Membership provides the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps and games, including access to app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more."

And here:

"Membership provides the tools, resources, and support you need to create and deliver software and services to users around the world on over 2 billion active Apple devices."

Gain access to features that let you configure app services, manage your development teams, and submit new apps and updates.

Build your apps with a comprehensive set of services and capabilities that let you deliver advanced features to your users. Learn to leverage the power of integrated Apple hardware, software, and services to build seamless, intuitive, and multi-faceted experiences."

👉 It does give you the license to use Apple's IP!

And it costs $99 to subscribe - it's not free.
The Digital Markets Act is in force - and it's still not free.
And there's no indication of the EU having an issue with the $99 developer program fee.
Even if Apple can't continue forcing third parties to use Apple's in-app purchasing system: the developer program is not free.

There’s no point in debating someone who argues the sky is green.

I agree there’s no point in debating with someone who argues that the developer program subscription doesn’t give access/license to use Apple’s IP.

 

[applezulu]

Here we go...


Let's agree on that.

1) The developer subscription provides all of the tools and access to Apple's IP that is needed to develop, build, publish and distribute apps for iOS - and make money from it. 👉 Their IP isn't given away for free.

What it does not include:

2) Selling digital goods/services through Apple's In-App-Purchasing system. For that, Apple charge a commission on sales revenue. 👉 IP isn't given away for free here either.

3) Marketing and selling digital goods/services to customers by other means, outside of Apple's App Store and their IAP system. That is prohibited or (in the case of marketing communication) severely restricted by Apple's developer terms.

👉 But third parties selling their own digital creations/services directly to customers without using Apple's services isn't giving away Apple's IP either.

Costco sells toilet paper.
Or alternatively: A toilet paper manufacturer rents a space in Costco to sell his toilet paper.
The toilet paper manufacturer includes a coupon or voucher in the packaging that says: "Hey, do you know our online store - we're giving you $20 for (or 20% off of) your next purchase you make through our alternative online store"

👉 Are they infringing Costco's intellectual property or forcing them to give away their intellectual property away for free? No.

Being able to sell directly to customers may be a right someone may want to charge for.
But it is not (and it is not derived from) an intellectual property - it results merely from owning the place, not from an intellectual invention of the mind.

Neither would Spotify promoting and selling its subscription infringe Apple's IP.
They made or licensed the content (not from Apple), and selling that to customers directly doesn't impact or use Apple's intellectual property. Apple's right to charge "on their turf" may be restricted - but their right to intellectual property isn't.

You may claim that Apple wants to charge for their IP only from a specific subset of business users (namely the ones that sell digital goods) in the form of a sales commission. Yeah, that may be restricted by the DMA - but it does not mean they can't charge for it in other ways - that do not anticompetitive advantages to their own competing services and don't lead to unjustified differentation.

Again: Restrictions don't mean your ownership rights are given away or stolen.


Apple can charge for their IP in different ways - but their way of charging has to comply with the DMA. They have a choice. The fact that they can't in every way they'd possible like to doesn't mean they're forced to give away their IP.

The sentence "Apple has so far kept the option to subscribe to the previous conditions, which do not allow alternative distribution channels at all." hints at what conclusions their investigation may arrive at.

In your Costco/TP example, it’s one thing if the TP manufacturer’s coupon allows you to order more TP to be delivered directly to you.

It’s an entirely different thing if the coupon is for free TP that you can come pick up at Costco. Just walk in, take the TP stocked at Costco and walk back out, without going through checkout. That’s using Costco’s facilities to benefit your bottom line without compensating Costco for the service.

Coupons are pretty common, actually, and they involve a discount given by the manufacturer which becomes part of the transaction through the retailer’s point-of-sale system.

You can buy a single-copy issue of a magazine at a retailer and use an inserted coupon to subscribe directly to that magazine, but delivery of your future issues won’t be using the retailer’s floor space or resources. You can’t buy a subscription that enables you to go pick up your magazine stocked at the retailer and walk out with it, bypassing the checkout.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In your Costco/TP example, it’s one thing if the TP manufacturer’s coupon allows you to order more TP to be delivered directly to you.

It’s an entirely different thing if the coupon is for free TP that you can come pick up at Costco.

You can buy a single-copy issue of a magazine at a retailer and use an inserted coupon to subscribe directly to that magazine, but delivery of your future issues won’t be using the retailer’s floor space or resources.

Fully agree. 👍

And when a user subscribes to Spotify using Spotify's own payment method, Spotify will provide access and streaming of content to the user. Not through Apple's systems or Content-delivery-network.

Once the Spotify/third-party app has been delivered to the user's device, it's not Apple's business anymore.
Unless, of course, Spotify/the third-party developer elect to use Apple's IAP for additional transactions.

Just as, once a box of toilet paper has been paid for in Costco and loaded into the customer's car's trunk, Costco has no business on charging the TP manufacturer for future direct sales. Not even if the customer's car is also Costco-branded and was purchased from Costco (if they'd sell cars).

 

[I7guy]

It‘s not „given away“, because
1. the source code isn‘t made public.
2. designs are not allowed to be copied by others
3. Apple can charge for it

It is being given away because apple cannot monetize their up the way they want. That apple HAS to accept alternative app stores. I guess we have different opinions on this.

The going rate is $99 for a developer subscription - which includes everything needed to develop, build and distribute apps. Even on Apple’s App Store. And developers distributing outside of Apple’s App Store still have to pay that.

And to run the app the app still uses apple’s proprietary ip, which is being given away.

Hence their IP is not given away.

Hence it is.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple can charge for their IP in different ways - but their way of charging has to comply with the DMA. They have a choice. The fact that they can't in every way they'd possible like to doesn't mean they're forced to give away their IP.

You keep saying that, but I suspect the EU has zero intention of approving any proposal by Apple to charge developers for app revenue generated outside of the App Store. It shows in that nobody here can really come up with a viable alternative.

In short, the EU expects Apple to make it possible for developers to sidestep the App Store. While this has the benefit of allowing users access to apps normally not available in the App Store (for one reason or another), it also allows developers to avoid paying Apple their 15/30% cut.

I do recall proposing that Apple simply charge developers 27% of app revenue if they choose to sell their apps via third party app stores, while also giving Apple the right to audit developers' sales receipts to make sure that they are not shortchanging Apple, and I also remember you vehemently opposing this suggestion.

The consensus here is pretty clear. Just because Apple happens to make profitable hardware, they are somehow expected to simply subsidise the cost of everything else and offer all their services for free, including running the App Store at a loss, just because.

Huh.

 

[surferfb]

Here you have the answer, straight from the source:

"Join the Apple Developer Program to reach customers around the world on the App Store for all Apple platforms. Membership provides the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps and games, including access to app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more."

And here:

"Membership provides the tools, resources, and support you need to create and deliver software and services to users around the world on over 2 billion active Apple devices."

Gain access to features that let you configure app services, manage your development teams, and submit new apps and updates.

Build your apps with a comprehensive set of services and capabilities that let you deliver advanced features to your users. Learn to leverage the power of integrated Apple hardware, software, and services to build seamless, intuitive, and multi-faceted experiences."

👉 It gives you the license to use Apple's IP!

The words "license to use Apple's IP" is not uttered and either one of those quotes. Again. When you read the terms and conditions of the developer program, which I have, you'll see that as part of joining the program, you agree to be bound to separate agreements when you make your apps available to customers, Free Apps in Schedule 1, Free Apps with IAP in Schedule 2, and Paid Apps in Schedule 3. Right now, that includes paying Apple a commission OR in the case of the EU, accepting the alternate distribution option. That is where Apple is compensated for its IP, not the developer program fee.

You need a Mac computer to build iOS apps. You'd be laughed out of the room if you argued the quotes you shared entitled you to a free Mac since you joined the developer program. "It says membership provides the tools, resources, and support needed - that means I get a Mac as part of the $99." But that's EXACTLY what you're doing here. Intellectual Property is just as much property as a computer.

If you don't like the terms and conditions of the program, there's an easy solution. Don't agree to the terms and conditions and go build your app for Android.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The words "license to use Apple's IP" is not uttered and either one of those quotes.

A license or agreement can grant access to IP without verbatim stating “it’s a licence to use our IP”.
You’re playing ridiculous word games now.
In fact, it certainly will specify what and how it can be used in more detail.

You need a Mac computer to build iOS apps. You'd be laughed out of the room if you argued the quotes you shared entitled you to a free Mac since you joined the developer program. "It says membership provides the tools, resources, and support needed - that means I get a Mac as part of the $99." But that's EXACTLY what you're doing here.

We haven’t mentioned Mac computers til now, even though we both know that one is needed to develop such apps.
You‘re playing games now.

 

[surferfb]

A license or agreement can grant access to IP with stating “it’s a licence to use our IP”.
You’re playing ridiculous word games now.


We haven’t mentioned Mac computers til now, even though we both know that one is needed to develop such apps.
You‘re playing games now.

"It's the spirit of the program, not the letter of the terms and conditions."

Well, at least you're consistent.

 

[AppliedMicro]

When you read the terms and conditions of the developer program, which I have

I‘m asking again:
What does the developer program gives you?
Does it give you the developer access and allows use of Apple’s IP - yes or no?

you'll see that as part of joining the program, you agree to be bound to separate agreements when you make your apps available to customers, Free Apps in Schedule 1, Free Apps with IAP in Schedule 2, and Paid Apps in Schedule 3.

Yes - and Apple reserves the right to charge a commission on
1. Sales of Apps through their App Store
2. ”Digital” sales made through their in-app purchasing system.
Both things remain unchanged - Apple can continue to charge such commissions.

What changes? Apple’s monopoly on distribution of iOS apps (to consumers) and their forcing IAP on certain transactions is being restricted.

Note that they still can and do charge third-party developers for using Apple’s IP, even when they’re distributing outside of the Apple App Store. Marketing and selling directly to consumers without using Apple’s IAP doesn’t use Apple’s IP anyway.

Apple aren’t forced (by the DMA) to publish their IP or allow use of by third parties - beyond what they aren’t already doing (on their own volition) through their developer program. And neither are they prohibited from monetising their - except in limited circumstances.

 

[applezulu]

Fully agree. 👍

And when a user subscribes to Spotify using Spotify's own payment method, Spotify will provide access and streaming of content to the user. Not through Apple's systems or Content-delivery-network.

Once the Spotify/third-party app has been delivered to the user's device, it's not Apple's business anymore.
Unless, of course, Spotify/the third-party developer elect to use Apple's IAP for additional transactions.

Just as, once a box of toilet paper has been paid for in Costco and loaded into the customer's car's trunk, Costco has no business on charging the TP manufacturer for future direct sales. Not even if the customer's car is also Costco-branded and was purchased from Costco (if they'd sell cars).

Your analogy would work there only if it did not matter whether Costco stayed in business or not after the initial sale. If Apple shut down operations tomorrow, the functionality of the iPhone platform would quickly deteriorate, as would the viability of a Spotify subscription continuing to operate via an app on the iOS platform.

In effect, a direct subscription to Spotify toilet paper doesn't function without the Costco delivery platform. Essentially you can only use your Costco-platform toilet paper if you stay on Costco's premises. You aren't loading it into your trunk and driving away. You could take your subscription over to Sam's Club, but then you can't drive away from there, either. In this conception, Costco isn't just a store, it's a platform upon which everything sold in that store is built.

An iPhone is not just a piece of mechanical/electrical hardware that can function in perpetuity without ongoing support from Apple. It's not like a 1930s Westinghouse 202 telephone that still functions 90 years later, so long as it's connected to a network that generates a dial tone. No one is writing network-delivered spyware (nor could they) that would turn your Westinghouse 202 into a listening device. For that matter, an iPhone isn't even like a 1990s Mac or PC that can function in perpetuity off-network.

An iPhone is a network-connected device that not only requires ongoing support from the manufacturer to function as-is, but in a highly competitive, rapidly developing technological market, requires continuous updates and improvement from the manufacturer for it to be technologically viable on continually changing network technology as well as for it to be competitively viable as a platform. At rock-bottom minimum, Apple must constantly provide iOS updates to respond to network-based security threats.

So you're simply wrong that the Spotify/3rd-party app is no longer Apple's business once it's been installed. You're also wrong in conceiving of the iPhone as a static platform that will operate nominally for the Spotify user without any further value added by Apple after the initial app installation. Apple must not only continue to be a resource for OS updates to serve the iPhone customer, they must also be a resource for App developers to assure they are able to produce app updates that will continue to operate on the updated OS platform.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In effect, a direct subscription to Spotify toilet paper doesn't function without the Costco delivery platform. Essentially you can only use your Costco-platform toilet paper if you stay on Costco's premises.

It would function, as long as the app installed on a consumer’s device can establish HTTP/HTTPS connections to Spotify‘s servers. That is for longer than the useful lifespan of the device (particularly going by when Apple deems it unsupported as obsolete).

An iPhone is not just a piece of mechanical/electrical hardware that can function in perpetuity without ongoing support from Apple. It's not like a 1930s Westinghouse 202 telephone that still functions 90 years later, so long as it's connected to a network that generates a dial tone

It can. I own a 1980s-manufactured Macintosh computer and that works just fine, connects to my home network and to internet servers.

It certainly not very useful on the internet today - but if it had an internet audio streaming application back then, it would just continue to work today - provided that the streaming service continues to provide an appropriate backend. Which is entirely within their control, not Apple‘s.

In effect, a direct subscription to Spotify toilet paper doesn't function without the Costco delivery platform. Essentially you can only use your Costco-platform toilet paper if you stay on Costco's premises.

At rock-bottom minimum, Apple must constantly provide iOS updates to respond to network-based security threats.

If their product is defective or dangerous, they ought to fix that.
That‘s not of primary concern to Spotify or third-party developers.

In effect, a direct subscription to Spotify toilet paper doesn't function without the Costco delivery platform. Essentially you can only use your Costco-platform toilet paper if you stay on Costco's premises.

• If that was true
• and given the myriad of products and services developed/provided by third parties through it for so many things
• and if they were operating in a market duopoly with Sam‘s Club for said products/services

👉 you are making a convincing argument to regulate the platform as other essential services or utilities.


(cue in I7guy, proclaiming how only things needed for human survival should be considered utilities)

 

[applezulu]

It would function, as long as the app installed on a consumer’s device can establish HTTP/HTTPS connections to Spotify‘s servers. That is for longer than the useful lifespan of the device (particularly going by when Apple deems it unsupported as obsolete).


It can. I own a 1980s-manufactured Macintosh computer and that works just fine, connects to my home network and to internet servers.

It certainly not very useful on the internet today - but if it had an internet audio streaming application back then, it would just continue to work today - provided that the streaming service continues to provide an appropriate backend. Which is entirely within their control, not Apple‘s.

In effect, a direct subscription to Spotify toilet paper doesn't function without the Costco delivery platform. Essentially you can only use your Costco-platform toilet paper if you stay on Costco's premises.


If their product is defective or dangerous, they ought to fix that.
That‘s not of primary concern to Spotify or third-party developers.

• If that was true
• and given the myriad of products and services developed/provided by third parties through it for so many things
• and if they were operating in a market duopoly with Sam‘s Club for said products/services

👉 you are making a convincing argument to regulate the platform as other essential services or utilities.


(cue in I7guy, proclaiming how only things needed for human survival should be considered utilities)

You're working hard to miss the point. The point is that if Apple is not actively maintaining the iPhone and iOS as a technically viable, market-competitive mobile platform, its value to to Spotify as a vehicle for delivering its service would rapidly diminish. The entire reason Spotify wants to be on iOS is because the people who purchase and use iPhones are statistically more likely to pay for an app or a service than are Android users. Apple continually adds ongoing value to their platform, both for its end users and for those who wish to place apps on the platform. Apple brings in the customers who are willing to actually pay for things of value. Most of the demand for enabling fee-free side-loading is coming not from the end users who pay for the platform, but from a cadre of app developers who want those paying customers and that added value for free.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The point is that if Apple is not actively maintaining the iPhone and iOS as a technically viable, market-competitive mobile platform, its value to to Spotify as a vehicle for delivering its service would rapidly diminish.

Everyone needs each other here
It's a symbiotic relationship

No matter how much we all enjoy our iPhones, if they weren't feature complete with the huge wide world of 3rd party Apps, it would be only a tiny fraction of what it has become.

 

[surferfb]

I'm actually done engaging in this thread for real this time. Unwatching it, no longer participating.

There is no point in debating people who repeatedly insist that the terms and conditions of participating in Apple's Development program are optional as long as you've paid the $99, that don't understand that IP can be licensed in different ways depending on use, that don't understand that just because Apple lets you use their Xcode IP to build an app doesn't mean they've given you a license to use all of iOS for whatever purposes you want.

Best of luck to all of you!

 

[applezulu]

Everyone needs each other here
It's a symbiotic relationship

No matter how much we all enjoy our iPhones, if they weren't feature complete with the huge wide world of 3rd party Apps, it would be only a tiny fraction of what it has become.

This is absolutely true. It's also true that the entire mobile app market exists only because Apple created the iPhone and then created an App Store that eliminated almost all of the risk to the end-user for purchasing, downloading and installing an app on their personal computing device. The entire paradigm was created by Apple in the mid-to-late naughts.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Now, does the DMA impose certain (but few) restrictions on Apple's monetisation plans?
Indeed it does.
And it was about time it does!

We've had enough of Apple
- having their cake (providing developer program or a low flat fee to become a dominant platform for apps)
- eating it, too (charging suppliers of digital goods/services for not denying access to customers) while
- laughing all the way to the bank (30% commission for what is glorified payment processing) while,
- adding insult to injury, releasing all kinds of competing digital services exploiting their anticompetitive pricing.

 

[applezulu]

Now, does the DMA impose certain (but few) restrictions on Apple's monetisation plans?
Indeed it does.
And it was about time it does!

We've had enough of Apple
- having their cake (providing developer program or a low flat fee to become a dominant platform for apps)
- eating it, too (charging suppliers of digital goods/services for not denying access to customers) while
- laughing all the way to the bank (30% commission for what is glorified payment processing) while,
- adding insult to injury, releasing all kinds of competing digital services exploiting their anticompetitive pricing.

That is some first-rate spin right there! A fee for service is now defined as ‘charging for not denying access’!

Who knew that DHL and UPS were charging vendors for “not denying access” to their customers?

Airlines are charging travelers for “not denying access” to their destinations!

Why do I have to pay my ISP just to “not deny access” to the internet?

Next time I go to a concert, I’m going to yell at the person in the ticket booth for charging me for “not denying access” to the show!

Holy crap! Every time I turn around, I’m paying somebody to “not deny access” to something!

 

[applezulu]

Seriously, this “not denying access” argument is essentially an assertion that Apple is like mafia setting up a protection racket, using real or implied force to charge people for something they would otherwise have for free if Apple wasn’t there.

This is of course ridiculous. Apple is literally producing the user platform that makes access even possible. Apple provides a platform of such quality that it attracts customers who are much more willing to pay for apps and services. A big reason for that is the fact that Apple literally created the mobile app market. Applee’s App Store replaced a hot mess of disincentives for end-users to even consider trying third-party software with an easy, reliable, secure means for customers to click, pay, download and install apps that would “just work.” They no longer had to worry if an app would brick their computer. They no longer had to plan on reading an instruction manual just to figure out each app’s not-so-cleverly-unique user interface. They no longer had to decide if they should trust yet another unknown vendor with their credit card. If it’s a subscription, they no longer have to worry that it will be impossible to cancel. The list goes on.

So no, Apple is not inserting themselves between app developers and their customers just to “charge for not denying access” while providing nothing of actual value.