The streaming service is providing a service. They aren’t selling goods.
Just look how YouTube is regulated in the DMA.
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.
Apple Again Changes EU App Store Rules and Fees to Comply With DMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just look how YouTube is regulated in the DMA.
That’s not what I’m arguing at all. I’m arguing iOS, which is Apple’s property, doesn’t magically become mine when I buy an iPhone. A license to use that copy of iOS sure, but just like buying a Star Wars DVD doesn’t give you a license to use it commercially without further compensating Disney, you don’t get a license to use Apple’s property without compensation.
The phone is yours, and you can use the software personally however you want. Apple retaining rights isn’t perpetual leasing.
Please stop the personal attacks. I’m not being dishonest; I have a different opinion that you.
1) the price of iPhone has no bearing on what developers should pay to use Apple’s property
2, 3, and 4) The price of the developer agreement was set with the expectation you’d be paying your fair share when you sell apps in the App Store. If rent a house to you saying “the application fee and security deposit is $500, and then you pay an additional $500 monthly, you can’t say “The price was $500, you’re not allowed to charge any more”
5) That has nothing to do with anything.
The fact of the matter is the EU is imposing their worldview on everyone.
It does. Go up and read Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.
2. Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.
An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used\' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet
An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used\' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet <img alt=”” src=”j12_94.eni\/Picturesec.europa.eu
You’re misunderstanding “you have a right to sell your copy of that software” with “you have a right to use Apple’s IP without paying for it.” Which is why Samsung can’t buy an iPhone and then iOS on its galaxy devices.
Jalbreaking certainly was a niche market, but my point was how hard it was to make a go of it, as an independent App Store, even in a niche. From what I found, in Cydia's best year, on $10mill in revenue the net was 250K or 2.5%. Not a good profit in an industry where everyone keeps saying costs are minimal. Even Cydia's founder said he shut it down because it simply was not financially viable to continue.
I suspect we will see App Stores spring up and fold, developers who go with them have problems getting paid and angry customers if a store folds and now they have to rebuy the app from another. I'm just not convinced this will much, if any, overall benefit for most users.
Like I've said before, Apple should just allow side loading, charge and run its store like they want, and let developers decide what is best for them.
Now you are splitting hairs; and Spotify's business practices make Apple look generous.
It appears to be an anti-linking issue, not a streaming one per se.
The original purchase is all the recompense they get. Collecting a future tariff on things grown with it would be absurd and impossible to enforce.
Developers have bought a Mac, an iPhone, paid Apple's annual dev subscription. If they're not using Apple's infrastructure to deploy their applications they owe Apple nothing else.
The new Apple EU rules are just petty, punitive bureaucracy on their part to try to protect their income and their shareholders over developers, without whom they wouldn't have any platform to speak of.
It's a shame the Devs can't unionise!
We can both agree we’re arguing about petty, punitive bureaucracy. We’ll have to agree to disagree on who is to blame for it
.They sell it which is fine. They could rent it, and offer cheaper upgrades (which they actually do with trade-in) So in fact they do"rent" and "sell" the device.
Fully agree
Fully agree, and you do by the way with any Apple product you purchase. You can do with it anything you're capable of doing with it.
If that product "WAS" always intrinstic, and people purchased it anyway. AND, developers agreed to the terms and conditions. What makes them staying that way wrong? When it's working? Everyone agreed to this from the start. NOTHING changed. Nothing.
I'm having a hard time understanding why Apple has to bend and give when no developer of any game or software has to bend and give to Apple? The reason for this is money. When Apple makes someone else money. They want MORE money. When Apple isn't making someone else money, they run away from the platform.
If Apple were a landlord, it would own the deed to your farm, demand 30% of your harvest, charge extra for customers using the road, and call it ‘fertilizer maintenance’ while banning crop rotation.”
This isn’t capitalism, nor is it private property you advocate for it’s digital serfdom. The EU’s DMA exists because Apple’s “rent” is economic coercion, not fair exchange.
And You’re conflating ownership with entitlement to perpetual control like a quasi Feudal system.
You said:
“The price of the iPhone has no bearing on what developers should pay to use Apple’s property.”
But here’s the issue: developers don’t use Apple’s property users do. Developers build their own software and license it to end users, who happen to run it on hardware they purchased. Developers already pay Apple to access its IP.
That is the royalty for using Apple’s tools and SDKs. That’s the deal. Everything beyond that; App Store fees, IAP commission etc are optional services that Apple charges for when developers use them.
But when a developer doesn’t use those services distributes outside the App Store, or uses their own payment processor then Apple still demands a cut.
And your defense is… what?
“Well, they should’ve been paying more anyway.”
That’s not IP logic. That’s just rent-seeking
Under the Sale of Goods Directive 2019/771, goods with digital elements (like firmware or an OS you can’t remove) are treated as a sale of goods, not a recurring service.
You paid for the iPhone and everything in it. Mandatory OS isn’t a stand-alone service you keep renting and it’s part of the package.
Software and artificial content isn’t even regulated under the same rules or laws. The copyright of Star Wars preventing your use of the IP for commercial purposes is not the same as software. The software is equivalent to your potato and stalwarts is to the text of a book.
What you can’t do is resell copies of iOS, or resell copies of iPhones you built. But that’s a completely different concept to the use of said copy you own regarding copyright protections.
Well a few giant issues with that:
1: DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/771 concerning contracts for the sale of goods
2: DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/770 concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services
Apple's/ your sleight of hand: Pretending that a weather app developer uses Apple's IP by running code on a sold iPhone is like claiming John Deere ”co-created” your potatoes because you dug the soil with their shovel."
This isn’t capitalism, nor is it private property you advocate for it’s digital serfdom. The EU’s DMA exists because Apple’s “rent” is economic coercion, not fair exchange.
There are no personal attacks here. If you’re going to claim that something is “given away for free” or that Apple is owed indefinite cuts on others’ downstream business, I will point out the material facts and the economic incoherence of that claim. That’s not personal it’s accountability.
And You’re conflating ownership with entitlement to perpetual control like a quasi Feudal system.
You said:
“The price of the iPhone has no bearing on what developers should pay to use Apple’s property.”
But here’s the issue: developers don’t use Apple’s property users do. Developers build their own software and license it to end users, who happen to run it on hardware they purchased. Developers already pay Apple to access its IP.
- That’s the €99/year fee.
- That’s the Xcode licensing.
That is the royalty for using Apple’s tools and SDKs. That’s the deal. Everything beyond that; App Store fees, IAP commission etc are optional services that Apple charges for when developers use them.
But when a developer doesn’t use those services distributes outside the App Store, or uses their own payment processor then Apple still demands a cut.
And your defense is… what?
“Well, they should’ve been paying more anyway.”
That’s not IP logic. That’s just rent-seeking
Under the Sale of Goods Directive 2019/771, goods with digital elements (like firmware or an OS you can’t remove) are treated as a sale of goods, not a recurring service.
You paid for the iPhone and everything in it. Mandatory OS isn’t a stand-alone service you keep renting and it’s part of the package.
Software and artificial content isn’t even regulated under the same rules or laws. The copyright of Star Wars preventing your use of the IP for commercial purposes is not the same as software. The software is equivalent to your potato and stalwarts is to the text of a book.
What you can’t do is resell copies of iOS, or resell copies of iPhones you built. But that’s a completely different concept to the use of said copy you own regarding copyright protections.
Eu is a sovereign territory. they impose their views on their own territory as is their right.
You're conflating copyright exhaustion (my right to resell my copy of iOS) with IP infringement (stealing Apple's code). Samsung cloning iOS would indeed violate copyright law. But when i use my purchased iPhone to run a business, that's no more ”stealing Apple's IP” than a farmer owing John Deere 30% of the crop revenue because they uses their tractors…
Well a few giant issues with that:
1: DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/771 concerning contracts for the sale of goods
2: DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/770 concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services
| sales contract’ means any contract under which the seller transfers or undertakes to transfer ownership of goods to a consumer, and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay the price thereof; | |
| 16 | …Another example would be where it is expressly agreed that the consumer buys a smart phone without a specific operating system and the consumer subsequently concludes a contract for the supply of an operating system from a third party. In such a case, the supply of the separately bought operating system would not form part of the sales contract and therefore would not fall within the scope of this Directive… |
Apple's/ your sleight of hand: Pretending that a weather app developer uses Apple's IP by running code on a sold iPhone is like claiming John Deere ”co-created” your potatoes because you dug the soil with their shovel."
If Apple were the company of 2003 I'd agree with you. But, as with Google they are the gate keeper to.an infrastructure that rivals the internet itself in reach and revenue generation. That much power should not be in the hands of one democratically unaccountable entity.We can both agree we’re arguing about petty, punitive bureaucracy. We’ll have to agree to disagree on who is to blame for it
Whilst it's true that neither Apple nor Google cannot help the popularity of their platforms, they also have to accept that change is inevitable.
At which point we are back at the Mac again, where the end user can choose where they install apps from but can also choose not to use those outlets. You can sub to SetApp or you can build your own. The general public likely never step foot outside the App Store but they might also install Steam. Giving consumers choice, inviting competition (and therefore innovation) into what is a stagnant marketplace is the ultimate goal here.
When Apple have competition, man they soar. You only have to look at how they put together the M4 Mini and undercut nearly every PC desktop on the market in price and performance. We're all here on an Apple forum because we all like their products.
But then in an area without much competition, where they have access to things other companies cannot we end up with an Apple Watch situation, where they haven't done anything significant to the platform in 7 years.
Nobody would want to live under some.totalitarian centralised corporate superstate in real life. The EU is democratically elected and a pretty great place to live. If anything it's a good example at what happens when you do bring an open market mentality to things, with citizens able to move from one country to another with zero friction and not have to worry about currency exchange and so forth.
Last edited:
Would it be fair to say you don't think Apple has the right to run an exclusive App Store as the only way to obtain apps on the platform they created? And that Apple has no right to monetise their property outside hardware sale, service subs, and the dev agreement? Rightly or wrongly, that's what I'm hearing, and I want to make sure I'm understanding properly.
Still harmed and you still can't use it.
nope. being forced to use third party payment system is less secure then just sticking with one payment platform you already have put your credit card in with.
still requires more steps and plenty of websites doesn't autofill properly which requires one by one autofill. and stored with unknown security.
versus
one tap to pay, handled by apple.
no. that's apple's decision.
It’s taken 7 years ago.
From the FortNiteBR community on Reddit: The app charges more for V-Bucks than PC for the exact same amount.
Explore this post and more from the FortNiteBR communitywww.reddit.com
read the comment under that. in usa, pc and iPhone and consoles were the same price 7 years ago. sounds like epic games had some EU specific trouble.
thanks for proving me right.
Well thinking more fully renting. Not a payment plan.
This logic “everyone agreed from the start, so what’s the problem?” sounds reasonable until you realize that competition law exists precisely to step in when those initial agreements become unavoidable due to market power.
Sure, developers agreed to Apple’s terms. But that doesn’t make those terms immune from scrutiny once Apple gained entrenched gatekeeper power over a critical access point to millions of users.
And you can always read article 101 and 102 to get the gist that it’s always been illegal. Thebaner just takes time to catch up sometimes.
Cydia is still available just not the dedicated store for bigboss. And if you use other repositories you’re not impacted.
And you’re being a bit incorrect about the difficulty that’s order of magnitude higher than any store would ever face. Going years without any ability to update because no working jailbreaks existed. Or worse you upgraded and where stuck on a version without a jailbreak.
Costs are still minimal but they hit peak users with ios6… of 23 million
Well we already see. So appdb, Sidestore, AltStore etc
It’s not splitting hairs when they are two clearly distinct things in law.
Selling software is equivalent to selling goods like let’s say a broom. You’re having a transfer of ownership. While the service is literally no such ownership transfer.
Spotify is selling nothing.
Netflix is selling nothing
Steam store sells goods
Apple AppStore sells goods
1: yes on the exlclusive store usable
2:no I think they can potentially have other ways to monetize their property. Such as providing some of their services at use
Example the noterisation could have been leveraged for it, using ApplePay, use Made for IPhone like thing to show quality for apps
Nobody is forced to use a third party payment system. Unless Apple wants it like that.
I don’t consider it harmed considering this has been the statues quo since 2008… this is no difference
Something that stays unchanged. ApplePay can be used and is cheaper than IAP.
And is an issue in most apps as well. Just yesterday I had to use an app to charge my car and type in my card manually 🤷♂️
Not their app.
Why is the relevance of it being the U.S.? Exist mutitude of other applications that had cheaper prices outside the app vs inside the app.
more steps. less security.
plenty do.
not being able to use useful features due to a regulation is harmful.
new laws prevented usage. not status quo
It's not being used everywhere.
Real world goods and services are exempted for obvious reasons.
don't build for iOS then.
same price in USA so it's specifically an EU problem (not Apple problem). because apple rules are the same globally.
NO ONE IS FORCED TO DEVELOP FOR IOS. It has a minority market share. There is no serfdom, no coercion. Developers choose to develop for iOS because it offers them value; value which Apple deserves to be compensated for.
Again, the developer agreement fee was set with the agreement that the cost to use Apple’s tools included a commission on any digital goods or services sold to Apple’s users. The terms explicitly lay that out.
You can’t just come in and retroactively say “the price is just the $99” any more than I can walk into Costco take a TV off the shelf and walk out without paying because “I already paid Costco’s membership fee.”
My defense is simple: developers are using Apple’s property, so they follow Apple’s rules. If Apple is forced to allow sideloading or alternate payments, that doesn’t negate the fact that the app still runs on iOS and uses Apple’s APIs, frameworks, and platform infrastructure.
That’s not rent-seeking. It’s compensation for ongoing platform access and maintenance, which is a significant service and value to developers. If Apple stopped updating iOS, enforcing security, or supporting dev tools, the app wouldn’t function. The $99 fee doesn’t begin to cover that development and maintenance.
If your business depends on someone else’s property, paying to use it is not exploitation, it’s the cost of doing business.
You buying an iPhone doesn’t magically mean the developer paid for the platform their app relies on (Apple’s OS, APIs, and tools). That’s not part of the sale of the iPhone; it’s a separate license to use Apple’s IP to run a business. That’s not “renting”, it’s standard licensing. If a developer wants to build using Apple’s property, they pay for that privilege and abide by the rules, just like a physical store needs to pay rent and follow their landlord’s rules.
That’s not accurate. Software is protected by copyright law, just like Star Wars is. When you buy an iPhone, you get a license to use a copy of iOS, not ownership of iOS. And that license doesn’t extend to developers using Apple’s proprietary APIs however they want; especially not commercially. Moreover, the license you get when you buy your phone is a limited use license, and it absolutely does not confer unrestricted usage rights.
Again, like buying a Star Wars DVD doesn’t let you use its content in your own film, buying a phone doesn’t give developers a free pass to use Apple’s IP without payment.
Just like you can’t legally use a Star Wars DVD to run a public screening for profit, you can’t use your iOS copy in ways Apple explicitly forbids, even if you’re not reselling anything. Copyright absolutely limits how you use protected works, not just how you copy or sell them.
No one is arguing they don’t have a right to do so, they absolutely do.
I am saying they’re unjustly imposing their incorrect views on everyone and are harming millions in doing so. Their ideas have already been shown to be harming its citizens, so much so that the same government commissioned a report to figure out why they have an innovation problem. A report that unsurprisingly came back with “cut regulations.”
Apple’s restrictions aren’t about using the iPhone to run a business, they’re about accessing Apple’s IP.
You own the hardware, but for the millionth time, iOS is licensed, not sold, and that license includes clear usage restrictions that both developers and users have agreed to. The key difference with your analogy is that John Deere doesn’t own and maintain the land the crops grow on. Apple does own and maintain the software the apps operate on. If you don’t own the land you’re growing your crops on, the landowner should be paid.
When you run a business using an iPhone, Apple doesn’t care. But if your business depends on bypassing the licensing terms you’ve agreed to, say, by using private APIs, you’re not just “using your phone,” you’re using Apple’s property in ways they explicitly restrict.
Those limit Apple’s ability to control resale of the phone. It doesn’t void license agreements tied to platform access (e.g. developer tools, App Store, private APIs). You buy the iPhone and receive a license to use iOS, not ownership of Apple’s underlying IP.
Again you are confusing “I have a license to use iOS on my phone” with “that means Apples rules don’t matter anymore.”
Apple’s license to iOS and its SDKs is not like selling a shovel. It’s an active license with conditions, especially when it comes to monetizing apps. Those terms aren’t voided when you buy your phone, and they’re agreed to voluntarily when a developer uses Apple’s tools.
And I don’t know how you can argue the weather app isn’t using Apple’s IP. That’s just not a serious argument.
Last edited:
Cydia the app yes, but the jailbreak store that had a payment system and was run as an alternative was closed down because it was not profitable, per the owner. When you make 2.5% on $10million in revenue there is a problem.
I have no doubt they will exist, I just question their long term viability and ability to become a significant player. Hobbyist stores such as AltStore may survive, but unless they can generate enough revenue to survive will have a tough go of it.
However, Spotify is the dominant player and dictates terms, why should they be treated differently as they still are selling other people's products and providing nothing but a streaming source. That seems to be one major argument against the Apple App Store is all they do is provide hosting and charge 15 or 30%.
Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to put an add in their song or point out other songs of theirs to get more revenue?
I'm baffled how you can claim this with a straight face. Developing for either iOS or Android is not some kind of luxury. It's a necessity for thousands of businesses to even exist in the marketplace. It's like saying, you don't need to have a digital account with a bank to do business, just use cash and gold.
As a business you also can't dictate what device or OS your customers use.
It is a choice to develop for iOS. No one is forced to. Developers choose it because it offers access to a valuable, high-spending user base. Android, the web, desktop apps, web apps, etc. are all viable alternatives if developers/businesses don’t like Apple’s terms. If iOS didn’t provide value, developers wouldn’t develop for it. So Apple should be compensated for that value.
Yes, many businesses prefer to be on both iOS and Android because that’s where users are. But it’s not a requirement. There are plenty of businesses operating on one and not the other, or only making web apps, or offering “viewer” apps that don’t charge users in app.
To use your bank analogy, if a business doesn’t like a bank’s terms and conditions with their bank account or loan, they don’t get to use the bank account or loan and ignore the terms and conditions. They have to choose a different bank. Same thing here.
Same thing? Let's say, by a coincidence of history, there would only be two major banks left in the world. The Apple App Store Bank and the Google Play Store Bank. Both with the same high fees. Every transaction with a customer from the these banks would cost the business a 20% fee for "IP and access to their customers".
Is this a heathy situation for customers and third party businesses and the economy as a whole in your opinion?
It’s an opt in relationship. You know what’s not a choice? Air, food and water. Also your financial security which is protected by a myriad of laws.
But if apple is such a necessity as you claim then the system they have works very well and should be left alone. Period, end of story.
Access to customers on Android and Apple platforms on fair terms is the necessity. Period, end of story.
Let’s say you call the fees high but they are reasonable and proportional to the services provided and the growth of the funds in the account.
I totally disagree. Because you see it as a necessity youn see your thinking and opinion on that. That then the platform needs control. But you haven’t proven it’s a necessity in the same category as air, food and water, which are necessities. Period. Full stop.
That’s the issue of small scale before you reach economy of scale. It was still used for 10~ years on.
The payment system is just part of the cydia app now defunct.
Considering appdb have existed for more than 10 years and cydia is still operating to allow you install apps or other sources for longer than the AppStore have existed I would say it’s going to be easier without the systemic issues in the way.
With sideloading you don’t need to jailbreak, wait for an fix for a year as they find a new iOS bug, use grey market developer licenses etc just as a user to use them.
They aren’t selling any others products. And that’s a big difference of selling other people’s goods and taking a a fee vs paying to stream them. Would you demand a radio station to have a store?
They can have any add they wish in the song and do that
Spotify for Artists lets you:
- Add artist images
- Write your bio
- Add an Artist Pick
- Feature an artist playlist
- Add a Fan Support fundraising link
- Manage concerts and merch
- Add links to your socials
- Upload videos and visuals
- Create a Countdown Page for pre-saves