Apple Again Changes EU App Store Rules and Fees to Comply With DMA

[surferfb]

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".

That’s simply not true - they don't have the same "high" fees (and I disagree the fees are high). Android allows sideloading, alternative app stores, and third-party payment systems. Developers have real flexibility on that platform. If both ecosystems charged identical fees and restricted access in the same way, I'd agree regulation might be needed. But they don’t.

More importantly, I'd argue Apple’s user base and platform quality are a large part of the value developers are paying for. If developers could reach Apple’s users, using Apple’s IP and infrastructure, without Apple’s involvement or compensation, that would be actual exploitation. Turning a private company into a public utility.

And again, no one is forced to develop for iOS. Many successful businesses operate solely on Android or the web. Developers choose iOS because it offers value. Sure, that taking advantage of that value comes with novel terms like "paying for it", but choosing to participate doesn’t entitle anyone to rewrite the terms just because they think they deserve a free ride.

Access to customers on Android and Apple platforms on fair terms is the necessity. Period, end of story.

It's not a necessity any more than it's a "necessity" that a certain store be in a certain mall.

It's entirely possible a store isn't profitable if they're not located in a certain mall because that mall attracts wealthy customers and foot traffic that the store owner couldn't attract in a stand-alone store. That doesn't mean the store owner is entitled to be in the mall without paying the mall owner or following the mall's rules.

Access to someone else’s property on your own terms is not a right or necessity. If it was, then every mall and private marketplace would be forced to give equal access to anyone who wants it for free. That’s not how the free market (or property rights) work.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

Serfdom is a reference to your private ownership implication. Because it’s a lot closer to that than any modern notion of it.

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.”

This is just make-believe as it’s not supported in the developers agreement that I can find anywhere.Where do you find that the commission includes royalties and licensing fees and not part of the developer subscription?

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.

Now what property are you speaking of? When are developers running the app on apples property? Because it seems to be running on consumer’s property.

If Apple stops supporting dev tools you will have the same ability to develop and deploy apps with the caveat of the signature needed. APIs are built in to the OS. And can always be made by the developers to interact with the underlying framework.

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.

Yet you don’t have to pay any licensing for using your tractor or shovel premium to conduct commercial activity.

By law everything on the iPhone is included in the purchase as the consumer’s personal copy.

I gave you literally a law over contracts that say it’s property. I gave you cases where they also say it’s your property you don’t license…

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.

Star Wars =/software.
Software=goods

They aren’t governed by the same copyright regulations nor exceptions. You’re mixing up the copyright of the design and construction of the device and the commercial exploitation of said device. A shovel is covered by the exact same copyright.

The license isn’t legally enforceable. As numerous cases show you can decompile, modify and provide interoperability by even removing DRM.

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.

It doesn’t. You’re allowed to do exactly whatever you want with it privately as long as it’s your property.

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.”

I’m not arguing the moral or what’s just or unjust. I’m speaking strictly legally

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.

And for the millionth and 1, the law explicitly says it’s a sale of goods. The software isn’t excluded.

Apple owns the software IP, but not the software copy sold. Same how Apple owns the design of the iPhone, but not the iPhone in my hand.
Thers no support that a license agreement signed after transfer of ownership can implement any usecase limitations.

Example if the license agreement states I can’t use purple paint on the exterior of the iPhone or I can’t use the iPhones camera for commercial purposes or any photo edited on device is apples property would all be null and void.

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.”

Developer tools such as Xcode, the developer agreement, the AppStore isn’t included here. When I purchase an iPhone there’s no Xcode or developer agreement included.

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.

You can’t mix iOS and the SDK as they are provided separately.

Please show me the law that says any of these terms are illegal with the exception of 5&6:
1: installing a jailbreak on the iPhone they purchased.
2: person modifies iOS so they can install unsanctioned software.
3: a person writes software that can run on iOS without using apples SDK
4: distributing iOS software without signing the developer agreement
5: making copies of iOS and selling it
6: producing counterfeit iPhones you sell.

 

[delsoul]

Access to someone else’s property on your own terms is not a right or necessity. If it was, then every mall and private marketplace would be forced to give equal access to anyone who wants it for free. That’s not how the free market (or property rights) work.

But it does in EU land. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine…

 

[surferfb]

Serfdom is a reference to your private ownership implication. Because it’s a lot closer to that than any modern notion of it.

This is just make-believe as it’s not supported in the developers agreement that I can find anywhere.Where do you find that the commission includes royalties and licensing fees and not part of the developer subscription?

Now what property are you speaking of? When are developers running the app on apples property? Because it seems to be running on consumer’s property.

If Apple stops supporting dev tools you will have the same ability to develop and deploy apps with the caveat of the signature needed. APIs are built in to the OS. And can always be made by the developers to interact with the underlying framework.



Yet you don’t have to pay any licensing for using your tractor or shovel premium to conduct commercial activity.

By law everything on the iPhone is included in the purchase as the consumer’s personal copy.

Star Wars =/software.
Software=goods

They aren’t governed by the same copyright regulations nor exceptions. You’re mixing up the copyright of the design and construction of the device and the commercial exploitation of said device. A shovel is covered by the exact same copyright.

The license isn’t legally enforceable. As numerous cases show you can decompile, modify and provide interoperability by even removing DRM.

It doesn’t. You’re allowed to do exactly whatever you want with it privately as long as it’s your property.

I’m not arguing the moral or what’s just or unjust. I’m speaking strictly legally

And for the millionth and 1, the law explicitly says it’s a sale of goods. The software isn’t excluded.

Apple owns the software IP, but not the software copy sold. Same how Apple owns the design of the iPhone, but not the iPhone in my hand.
Thers no support that a license agreement signed after transfer of ownership can implement any usecase limitations.

Example if the license agreement states I can’t use purple paint on the exterior of the iPhone or I can’t use the iPhones camera for commercial purposes or any photo edited on device is apples property would all be null and void.

Developer tools such as Xcode, the developer agreement, the AppStore isn’t included here. When I purchase an iPhone there’s no Xcode or developer agreement included.


You can’t mix iOS and the SDK as they are provided separately.

Please show me the law that says any of these terms are illegal with the exception of 5&6:
1: installing a jailbreak on the iPhone they purchased.
2: person modifies iOS so they can install unsanctioned software.
3: a person writes software that can run on iOS without using apples SDK
4: distributing iOS software without signing the developer agreement
5: making copies of iOS and selling it
6: producing counterfeit iPhones you sell.

I don't think another line-by-line refutation of this is productive. You're continue to conflate the key concepts, mainly the distinction between end-user rights and developers' obligations when monetizing an app that uses Apple' IP, seem to think software licenses either don't exist or are unenforceable in the EU, and keep throwing up quotes to laws and legal decisions that don't say what you seem to think they do. If you're not arguing in reality there's really nothing more to say.

 

[MilaM]

I don't think another line-by-line refutation of this is productive. You're continue to conflate the key concepts, mainly the distinction between end-user rights and developers' obligations when monetizing an app that uses Apple' IP, seem to think software licenses either don't exist or are unenforceable in the EU, and keep throwing up quotes to laws and legal decisions that don't say what you seem to think they do. If you're not arguing in reality there's really nothing more to say.

Sophisticatednut's explanations are on point. It's you who refuses to accept the very sound legal arguments.

The terms of the App Store are not about the licensing of IP. The terms are only enforceable because of the technical hurdles (mostly standard cryptography techniques) that Apple put into place that make distribution of apps outside the App Store practically impossible. There is no obligation for third parties to license any IP to make a program for iOS and to program against Apple's APIs. Technically someone could write a compiler and IDE for iOS and Apple could do nothing to prevent you using it to link against their proprietary libraries.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don't think another line-by-line refutation of this is productive. You're continue to conflate the key concepts, mainly the distinction between end-user rights and developers' obligations when monetizing an app that uses Apple' IP, seem to think software licenses either don't exist or are unenforceable in the EU, and keep throwing up quotes to laws and legal decisions that don't say what you seem to think they do. If you're not arguing in reality there's really nothing more to say.

I absolutely belive software licensing exist. It’s just a strong distinction of what’s required for it to be legal such as actually agreeing to it before concluding a sale. What constitutes sale, purchase or lease.

There’s a stark contrast between a developers obligation who have signed the developer agreement. And a developer agreement who hasn’t even interacted with it

Yet both developers and distribute apps thatching on iPhones. One on through the AppStore and the other through cydia.

Now for me it’s a clearcut legal interaction, but for you it seems to be a clearcut IP or copyright violation with no legal basis under existing EU law.

Edit: for me jailbreak is prima facie 100% legal.

 

[surferfb]

Sophisticatednut's explanations are on point. It's you who refuses to accept the very sound legal arguments.

The terms of the App Store are not about the licensing of IP. The terms are only enforceable because of the technical hurdles (mostly standard cryptography techniques) that Apple put into place that make distribution of apps outside the App Store practically impossible. There is no obligation for third parties to license any IP to make a program for iOS and to program against Apple's APIs. Technically someone could write a compiler and IDE for iOS and Apple could do nothing to prevent you using to link against their proprietary libraries.

Incorrect.

In the EU, Apple’s SDKs and APIs are protected by copyright under the Software Directive so there is a legal obligation to license Apple’s IP if you want to develop against its proprietary frameworks. Under Article 4 of the Directive, Apple holds exclusive rights to authorize reproduction and use of its computer programs (this includes SDKs and proprietary APIs). That means third parties do need a license to legally build software using Apple’s protected code, regardless of whether enforcement is technical or legal.

The ability to write your own compiler doesn’t give you the right to use or distribute software built on Apple’s APIs.

 

[MilaM]

Under Article 4 of the Directive, Apple holds exclusive rights to authorize reproduction and use of its computer programs—including SDKs and proprietary APIs. That means third parties do need a license to legally build software using Apple’s protected code, regardless of whether enforcement is technical or legal.

The end user who has bought a iPhone and a licence to iOS can use third party software without needing to license the IP again. What third parties can't do is take Apple's code and binaries and distribute them as their own, e.g. on a iPhone clone.

 

[surferfb]

The end user who has bought a iPhone and a licence to iOS can use third party software without needing to license the IP again. What third parties can't do is take Apple's code and binaries and distribute them as their own, e.g. on a iPhone clone.

End user can use third party software without licensing again, sure. That doesn't give the developer of that software the right (or a license to) use and/or monetize Apple's IP without compensating Apple.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

End user can use third party software without licensing again, sure. That doesn't give the developer of that software the right (or a license to) use and/or monetize Apple's IP without compensating Apple.

… but you quite literally need zero of apples software as nothing is replicated or redistributed because it’s already on device…
Zero IP is needed to write iOS software

The software isn’t standalone. Completly circumventing the clause you’re referring to.

How do you think SAS software was copied without being copied?
Briefly, these are the facts:

• SAS and World Programming are both software houses. SAS develops analytics software. World Programming is a British software company.
• World Programming took a licence to SAS software. the licence terms prohibit the use of SAS’s software to develop competing software.
• Despite this restriction, World Programming used SAS’s software to produce the World Programming System, a competing software product which emulated the functionality of SAS’s software.
• World Programming did this by observing the functioning of SAS’s software. World Programming did not have access to the underlying SAS source code.

So how did they rule on this? How do you honestly interpret the ruling?

 

[jlc1978]

That’s the issue of small scale before you reach economy of scale. It was still used for 10~ years on.

Except Cydia, even it's best year, was barely profitable; and unless you have a large bankroll to suffer losses while you try to scale I think it will be tough for independent stores to make a serious go of it.

The payment system is just part of the cydia app now defunct.

But that is what made them money; kinda hard without a way to collect revenue.

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.

I'm not saying a small niche hobbyist store won't or can't exist, especially fo things like porn, gambling, etc. that most big stores may avoid, just that I really doubt any independent store will be able to compete with Apple's or EPIC's simply because they likely won't have the funds or generate enough revenue to grow to teh point where they are an attractive option for developers.

They aren’t selling any others products.

Many of teh items under teh DMA are not selling products either. What product does a messenger service sell other than streaming bits and bytes, much like Spotify?

And that’s a big difference of selling other people’s goods and taking a a fee vs paying to stream them.

They are the biggest player in the EU music streaming market and thus should be considered a gatekeeper. Why should they be allowed to dominate the market just becasue they sell streaming services?

Would you demand a radio station to have a store?

They aren't digital or way smaller than any gatekeeper numbers, so the DMA would not apply.

They can have any add they wish in the song and do that
Spotify for Artists lets you:

So Spotify allows an artist to put an ad in their song that plays before it starts independent of Spotify and the get data on the audience to determine their own ad rates? really doubt that. If you are against the idea of gatekeepers,

Or be required to open up their platform so third party developers can make apps to play Spotify's stream and monetize them however they want? Spotify already has the subscription money so why not be made to do that?

Spotify should be reduced to simply streaming and let artists decide how the get paid for being on Spotify's stream; they have what 182 million users I the EU and 40% of the market. Sounds like a gatekeeper to me...

 

[surferfb]

… but you quite literally need zero of apples software as nothing is replicated or redistributed because it’s already on device…
Zero IP is needed to write iOS software

The software isn’t standalone. Completly circumventing the clause you’re referring to.

How do you think SAS software was copied without being copied?
Briefly, these are the facts:

• SAS and World Programming are both software houses. SAS develops analytics software. World Programming is a British software company.
• World Programming took a licence to SAS software. the licence terms prohibit the use of SAS’s software to develop competing software.
• Despite this restriction, World Programming used SAS’s software to produce the World Programming System, a competing software product which emulated the functionality of SAS’s software.
• World Programming did this by observing the functioning of SAS’s software. World Programming did not have access to the underlying SAS source code.

So how did they rule on this? How do you honestly interpret the ruling? View attachment 2524565

Once again you're misinterpreting a ruling. This is what those points say.

1. Functionality, programming languages, and data formats are not protected by copyright. You can emulate a program’s functionality but not copy the actual code, UI, or structure of the original.
2. Reverse engineering is permitted under certain conditions. If you lawfully obtain software, you can study or observe it to understand how it works, but only to ensure interoperability and not to build a competing product in violation of license terms. Note the key phrase at the end of point 2 in your screenshot "on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program."
3. User manuals may be protected if they meet originality thresholds. Not relevant here.

Why this ruling doesn't apply here:

1. This ruling doesn’t grant a right to use someone else’s proprietary APIs or SDKs in your own product without a license. Apple’s SDKs are not simply “functional ideas.” They include expressive code, UI elements, documentation, and platform-specific tools. Using them directly requires reproducing and linking against Apple’s copyright-protected code.
2. World Programming wrote its own code to replicate SAS’s functionality without accessing or copying its source. That’s completely different from developers who build iOS apps by importing Apple frameworks and distributing binaries that link to Apple’s runtime libraries. That’s not "observing behavior," it's using the platform.
3. Developers using Apple’s SDKs don’t just observe. They integrate and depend on Apple’s IP.
   Running an app on iOS involves things like using Apple's proprietary libraries, linking against Apple-owned frameworks, calling Apple-owned APIs.

In short, the ruling you cited only allowed replication of functionality, not reuse of the original software or its components. Apple’s SDKs, APIs, and tools contain Apple owned code and expression that the developers' iOS apps use directly. That’s not "reverse engineering" or "functional emulation" it’s active use of Apple’s IP, and under EU law I cited above, that requires a license.

 

[MilaM]

In the EU, Apple’s SDKs and APIs are protected by copyright under the Software Directive so there is a legal obligation to license Apple’s IP if you want to develop against its proprietary frameworks. Under Article 4 of the Directive, Apple holds exclusive rights to authorize reproduction and use of its computer programs (this includes SDKs and proprietary APIs). That means third parties do need a license to legally build software using Apple’s protected code, regardless of whether enforcement is technical or legal.

Exhaustion of intellectual property rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Computer Programs Directive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IANAL, but my interpretation of the above is, that once I buy an iPhone with iOS, Apple can't prohibit me from using that device to run third-party software, even if they make it technically difficult to do so.

Apple could only rent out the software, which would circumvent the first sale doctrine in the EU. But I'm not sure if they would want to go as far, because it would make using Apple hardware a colossal PITA.

 

[surferfb]

Exhaustion of intellectual property rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IANAL, but my interpretation of the above is, that once I buy an iPhone with iOS, Apple can't prohibit me using that device to run third-party software, even if they make it technically difficult to do so.

I don’t disagree. You, as the end user, can use your iPhone and iOS as you like. That’s the effect of exhaustion: Apple can’t control your resale or personal use of the device or software copy once sold.

But that principle doesn’t extend to third-party developers selling/providing software to others. If a developer builds software that uses Apple’s copyrighted APIs, SDKs, or runtime libraries, that’s not covered by exhaustion. That’s a separate act of reproduction and use of Apple’s IP, which still requires a license. Especially when done for commercial purposes.

 

[MilaM]

But that principle doesn’t extend to third-party developers selling/providing software to others. If a developer builds software that uses Apple’s copyrighted APIs, SDKs, or runtime libraries, that’s not covered by exhaustion. That’s a separate act of reproduction and use of Apple’s IP, which still requires a license. Especially when done for commercial purposes.

It does not have to extend to a third party that independently creates a new original software work. Because third party software only has to link dynamically to libraries already present on the device of the owner. Technically you don't even need Xcode to create the program/binary. It would not run easily because of the necessary code signing. But that's a technical limitation, not a legal one.

Edit: Just checked, it appears llvm, an open source compiler with a very permissible licence, is able to produce binaries for iOS.

 

[surferfb]

We're getting very near to the limits of my understanding here, but this is my understanding:

The method of linking doesn’t remove the legal obligation. Under Directive 2009/24/EC (Article 4), using any portion of a protected computer program (including libraries) requires the rights holder’s authorization unless a specific exception applies. Whether you use Apple’s libraries directly, or just link to them dynamically on the device, you’re still reproducing and executing Apple’s copyrighted code as part of your app. Even if a developer creates an original binary, if it depends on and invokes Apple’s proprietary APIs, that’s use of Apple’s IP and not covered by exhaustion or interoperability exceptions.

TLDR: a developer who distributes an app that calls and runs Apple’s protected code still needs a license to distribute that app. The developer can do it on their own device, but the second they provide that software to anyone else, they need Apple's permission.

 

[MilaM]

TLDR: a developer who distributes an app that calls and runs Apple’s protected code still needs a license to distribute that app. The developer can do it on their own device, but the second they provide that software to anyone else, they need Apple's permission.

You can't ship Apple's libraries with you software, you can only sell the part that you created. The customer then can use that part and run it on his device.

That's at least my understanding and the rational why the DMA is not infringing on Apple's IP. It is regulating business practices, not forcing Apple to license its IP for free.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Except Cydia, even it's best year, was barely profitable; and unless you have a large bankroll to suffer losses while you try to scale I think it will be tough for independent stores to make a serious go of it.

But that is what made them money; kinda hard without a way to collect revenue.

Well they didn’t really have any intention to make money. And it seems they had <15% revenue and developers kept 70-100%. https://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/02/saurik-explains-cydias/

Can’t ever remember I bought anything from the story but from the developers directly for a few tweaks

I'm not saying a small niche hobbyist store won't or can't exist, especially fo things like porn, gambling, etc. that most big stores may avoid, just that I really doubt any independent store will be able to compete with Apple's or EPIC's simply because they likely won't have the funds or generate enough revenue to grow to teh point where they are an attractive option for developers.

Well that’s mostly up to Apple unless they manage to ruin the store and make competitors more appealing 🤷‍♂️

Many of teh items under teh DMA are not selling products either. What product does a messenger service sell other than streaming bits and bytes, much like Spotify?

Well that’s because the DMA is targeting market bottlenecks between customers and providers. And as I link bellow you can also sell merchandise it seems for free 🤷‍♂️
Such as messaging and video services are related to social media platforms ( you can use iMessage/whatsap/signal etc) without being locked in to whatever app your friendgeoup uses despite you wanting to use something else for the features etc.

AppStore’s for software delivery

They are the biggest player in the EU music streaming market and thus should be considered a gatekeeper. Why should they be allowed to dominate the market just becasue they sell streaming services?

Well being dominant isn’t illegal, as long as no abuse is conducted and their legal obligations are fulfilled when they occupy a dominant market position. But I need some competition law or otherwise to look though 🤷‍♂️ outside of GDPR related things it’s not much to go by.

They are covers by the DSA

They aren't digital or way smaller than any gatekeeper numbers, so the DMA would not apply.

Obviously as a hypothetical. There’s digital radio as the main thing in EU.

So Spotify allows an artist to put an ad in their song that plays before it starts independent of Spotify and the get data on the audience to determine their own ad rates? really doubt that. If you are against the idea of gatekeepers,
Or be required to open up their platform so third party developers can make apps to play Spotify's stream and monetize them however they want? Spotify already has the subscription money so why not be made to do that?

Well… adds just play for free users so… but nothing stops the including an advertisement soundbite in their song. And you can implement some of their APIs if you want to integrate them into apps and other commercial ventures but that’s a separate matter and I’m fuzzy on the details.

Commercial Hardware | Spotify for Developers

developer.spotify.com

Spotify should be reduced to simply streaming and let artists decide how the get paid for being on Spotify's stream; they have what 182 million users I the EU and 40% of the market. Sounds like a gatekeeper to me...

Well… Spotify is simply streaming and artists do decide how to get payed, You might have a point if Spotify sold the music instead of licensing it from others. But they allow you to sell merchandise as well without taking a commission or link somewhere else for free.

Sell Merch on Spotify – Spotify for Artists

All you need to know about merch on Spotify. We've got tips, tricks and best practices for creating unique merch, connecting your Shopify store to Spotify for Artists, and selling and promoting merch to your top fans.

artists.spotify.com

Probably something Apple required a 30% fee on

 

[surferfb]

You can't ship Apple's libraries with you software, you can only sell the part that you created. The customer then can use that part and run it on his device.

That's at least my understanding and the rational why the DMA is not infringing on Apple's IP. It is regulating business practices, not forcing Apple to license its IP for free.

I think we're actually largely in agreement here (at least on the technical issues). We both agree a developer can’t bundle or redistribute Apple’s libraries, and their code still runs by invoking Apple’s IP on the user’s device. Users can run what they want, but developers still depend on Apple’s code to have their apps function. Right?

I think what we're arguing over is: a developer can build and distribute their own code, but if that code needs Apple’s IP to work, whether or not the developer is using Apple’s IP. My stance is, yes, they're using Apple's IP and Apple should be able to set conditions on that use (like how Apple is paid), because the developer's app wouldn't function without Apple's IP (even if said IP lives on a phone sold to an end user). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument that because Apple has already sold that copy of iOS to an end user, Apple isn't entitled to charge developers for use of the code that already exists on the end user's phone?

If that is your argument, I'd push back and say that kind of use of Apple's IP needs Apple's permission under EU law.
Article 4 of the directive gives software authors the exclusive right to authorize:

• (a) reproduction, even temporary;
• (b) adaptation or alteration;
• (c) distribution to the public.

Even if the libraries are preinstalled on the user’s device (i.e., distribution is exhausted), the developer’s code executes Apple’s code at runtime. That counts as temporary reproduction (and possibly adaptation) under EU law. The EUCJ seems to agree with me, if my googling is correct.

Nintendo v. PC Box (C‑355/12)
The EUCJ ruled that Nintendo can use technical protection measures to block unlicensed software if those measures are proportionate to preventing piracy. Circumventing those measures, like running unauthorized apps, can infringe IP rights, even if done for “legitimate” purposes.

If your interpretation was correct, circumventing those measures wouldn't violate IP rights, because it was done on the user's legally-purchased console.

 

[MilaM]

If that is your argument, I'd push back and say that kind of use of Apple's IP needs Apple's permission under EU law.
Article 4 of the directive gives software authors the exclusive right to authorize:

• (a) reproduction, even temporary;
• (b) adaptation or alteration;
• (c) distribution to the public.

The rights quoted only apply to first act of licensing/sale in my opinion. You have to take the following articles of the directive into account as well, especially article 6.

Nintendo v. PC Box (C‑355/12)
The EUCJ ruled that Nintendo can use technical protection measures to block unlicensed software if those measures are proportionate to preventing piracy. Circumventing those measures, like running unauthorized apps, can infringe IP rights, even if done for “legitimate” purposes.

It seems to me that this case actually helps my argument more than yours, so thanks for bringing it up 😆.

The decision by the EUCJ states, that even (commercial!) third parties can have legitimate interests when circumventing copy protection measures. It depends on the circumstances though. If the purpose of the circumvention method is mainly piracy, then it's likely illegal. If the circumvention is necessary to exercise legitimate rights, then it's legal. But to be honest, it is not a clear-cut decision in any direction.

The decision is quite interesting, because it also talks about the expectation a user might have when buying the device. General computing devices, like the iPhone, are not necessarily comparable to gaming consoles.

Take a look at the following article as well:

Case C-355/12 Nintendo: CJEU says copyright protection must be proportionate and that the circumvention of protection measures could be legal

The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that copyright owners can only object to circumvention of technical protection measures ("TPM")…

www.lexology.com

You mentioned earlier, that you also speak German, so maybe the following summary could be useful for you:

EuGH: Hacken einer Spielkonsole grundsätzlich rechtmäßig

Der EuGH hat in einem aktuellen Urteil (C-355/12) die Umgehung der Kopierschutzmaßnahmen von Spielkonsolen für insofern rechtmäßig erklärt, als dass …

www.computerbase.de

 

[surferfb]

Appreciate the thoughtful response! But I think we disagree on key legal points; we may be just need to agree to disagree, but I’ll lay out my thought process.

My read is Article 6 allows circumvention only if the restriction is found disproportionate to its purpose. Nintendo v. PC Box didn’t say third-party circumvention is always legal, it said it might be, depending on whether the restriction blocks lawful use without justification. Apple’s code signing and platform restrictions serve significant security and integrity purposes, so I suspect they'd likely meet the “justification” required. (Fully admit we’re probably at “IANAL, and definitely not a European Lawyer, so the courts would need to rule on this” territory here)

Also, I still think developers invoking Apple’s APIs are still relying on Apple’s copyrighted software. Again, I think that’s a use governed by Article 4. Exhaustion doesn’t apply there. So unless a developer can write an iOS app without triggering Apple’s libraries (which I don’t think is possible), they’re still using Apple’s IP, and Apple can license and condition that use per Article 4.

 

[wbeasley]

Access to customers on Android and Apple platforms on fair terms is the necessity. Period, end of story.

release your app for free then... wont cost you a cent/dime/rupee...

$99 a year.

EDIT: you could also do what Spotify long did and Microsoft and subscribe outside and then log into the app... paying Apple nothing...

 

[Ubuntu]

Then buy an Android.

Nah, I still prefer Apple devices so I'm good, thanks.

 

[MilaM]

My read is Article 6 allows circumvention only if the restriction is found disproportionate to its purpose. Nintendo v. PC Box didn’t say third-party circumvention is always legal, it said it might be, depending on whether the restriction blocks lawful use without justification.

My point is, that the decision by the court did not question if third party cartridges with original programs (not pirated ones) were allowed to be distributed just because they used parts of the copyrighted software on the console. If that was the case, it would have been a slam dunk for Nintendo and there would have been no need to call the EUCJ to resolve an ambiguity in the law.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I think we're actually largely in agreement here (at least on the technical issues). We both agree a developer can’t bundle or redistribute Apple’s libraries, and their code still runs by invoking Apple’s IP on the user’s device. Users can run what they want, but developers still depend on Apple’s code to have their apps function. Right?

I think what we're arguing over is: a developer can build and distribute their own code, but if that code needs Apple’s IP to work, whether or not the developer is using Apple’s IP. My stance is, yes, they're using Apple's IP and Apple should be able to set conditions on that use (like how Apple is paid), because the developer's app wouldn't function without Apple's IP (even if said IP lives on a phone sold to an end user). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is your argument that because Apple has already sold that copy of iOS to an end user, Apple isn't entitled to charge developers for use of the code that already exists on the end user's phone?

If that is your argument, I'd push back and say that kind of use of Apple's IP needs Apple's permission under EU law.
Article 4 of the directive gives software authors the exclusive right to authorize:

• (a) reproduction, even temporary;
• (b) adaptation or alteration;
• (c) distribution to the public.

Even if the libraries are preinstalled on the user’s device (i.e., distribution is exhausted), the developer’s code executes Apple’s code at runtime. That counts as temporary reproduction (and possibly adaptation) under EU law. The EUCJ seems to agree with me, if my googling is correct.

Nintendo v. PC Box (C‑355/12)
The EUCJ ruled that Nintendo can use technical protection measures to block unlicensed software if those measures are proportionate to preventing piracy. Circumventing those measures, like running unauthorized apps, can infringe IP rights, even if done for “legitimate” purposes.

If your interpretation was correct, circumventing those measures wouldn't violate IP rights, because it was done on the user's legally-purchased console.

I think you have narrowed it down with what our core disagreement might circulate around.

Once again you're misinterpreting a ruling. This is what those points say.

1. Functionality, programming languages, and data formats are not protected by copyright. You can emulate a program’s functionality but not copy the actual code, UI, or structure of the original.
2. Reverse engineering is permitted under certain conditions. If you lawfully obtain software, you can study or observe it to understand how it works, but only to ensure interoperability and not to build a competing product in violation of license terms. Note the key phrase at the end of point 2 in your screenshot "on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program."

Why this ruling doesn't apply here:

1. This ruling doesn’t grant a right to use someone else’s proprietary APIs or SDKs in your own product without a license. Apple’s SDKs are not simply “functional ideas.” They include expressive code, UI elements, documentation, and platform-specific tools. Using them directly requires reproducing and linking against Apple’s copyright-protected code.
2. World Programming wrote its own code to replicate SAS’s functionality without accessing or copying its source. That’s completely different from developers who build iOS apps by importing Apple frameworks and distributing binaries that link to Apple’s runtime libraries. That’s not "observing behavior," it's using the platform.
3. Developers using Apple’s SDKs don’t just observe. They integrate and depend on Apple’s IP.
   Running an app on iOS involves things like using Apple's proprietary libraries, linking against Apple-owned frameworks, calling Apple-owned APIs.
4. In short, the ruling you cited only allowed replication of functionality, not reuse of the original software or its components. Apple’s SDKs, APIs, and tools contain Apple owned code and expression that the developers' iOS apps use directly. That’s not "reverse engineering" or "functional emulation" it’s active use of Apple’s IP, and under EU law I cited above, that requires a license.

But that’s the thing it’s a question regarding the software being deployed are enacted by the user. How will you argue that the software developer is violating IP rights when they are at no time violating said rights.

Even if we assume some of your points are correct, your overall interpretation still doesn’t hold water under EU law and leads to legal paradoxes nobody wants.

Let’s take your strongest claims as given:

• Apple’s APIs and libraries are fully protected copyrighted works (even though SAS v. WPL clearly ruled APIs and functionality aren’t copyrightable).
• Any invocation of those APIs by a developer’s app counts as “use” of Apple’s IP that requires a license.
• Apple’s platform restrictions are justified under Article 6 or similar provisions.

How can a developer infringe Apple’s IP when all software execution happens on the user’s device, under their control? Even if we assume Apple’s APIs and libraries are fully copyrighted, and calling them requires a license, your view still fails under EU law.

Directive 2009/24/EC Article 4 grants exclusive rights over reproduction, adaptation, and distribution—but Article 5 allows lawful users to run software and make temporary copies as needed. If calling APIs counted as infringement, these exceptions would be nullified, which contradicts the directive’s purpose.

This is critical: if a user has lawfully acquired the device(as has already been established as a purchase and transfer of ownership)(with iOS and its libraries), then execution of iOS APIs on that device including when invoked by third-party apps are permitted without further authorization. This is settled EU law. The lawful acquirer (the device owner) has rights that are not extinguished just because a developer’s code triggers preinstalled APIs.

When they install a third-party app that calls Apple’s libraries, it’s the user, not the developer, who’s actually “using” Apple’s code.

2. Misunderstanding of Exhaustion and Lawful Use

The claim that apps invokes Apple’s IP (even if preinstalled), the developer must get a license. But this misreads how copyright exhaustion and user rights work in EU software law.
Distribution right is exhausted once Apple sells the device with iOS and libraries preinstalled. The buyer (end user) is now a lawful acquirer.

What the developer does is provide code that interacts with the user’s device. The developer is not distributing iOS or Apple’s IP; they’re distributing code that expects certain OS features to be present.
It’s akin to writing a Word macro, you’re using MS Word’s runtime behavior, but you’re not copying Word.

As a lawful acquirer of iOS and the iPhone , the user has the right to run and execute that software (Article 5(1)). So when they install a third-party app that calls Apple’s libraries, the actual use of Apple’s code is by the user, not the developer.

The developer does not reproduce or distribute Apple’s code
Your interpretation conflates calling a library with copying or distributing that library. The developer’s binary is their own code and does not contain Apple’s code. Apple’s software is already on the device. EU law requires reproduction or distribution to infringe copyright (Article 4). None of that happens here.


If API invocation were infringement, everyday software development would be illegal
Your theory would mean the moment I run software on any device I would invoke copyright infringement by proxy of the software developer.

And This logic would impose indirect liability on developers for lawful user behavior Developers would be indirectly liable whenever users execute apps that call into preinstalled system libraries.
That would create a bizarre strict liability regime, where lawful user behavior (running software) causes third-party copyright infringement by proxy. That’s a form of copyright by proxy that EU law does not recognize.

So even if we assume that Apple’s APIs and libraries are fully protected IP (which they arguably aren’t, per SAS Institute), the C-159/23 Sony v Datel confirms that using those APIs at runtime is not an infringing act by the developer.

In other words, your position that developers must have a license simply to call Apple’s system libraries fails under this ruling. It rejects any theory that runtime use or invocation is equivalent to reproduction or distribution.

If Apple really wanted to control this, they’d have to prohibit users themselves from running apps that call these libraries, which of course they can’t do because the user owns the device and software copy as a legally purchased product.

What I used
Exhaustion Doctrine InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC,
Copyright Boundaries Software Directive 2009/24/EC
Directive (EU) 2019/771 concerning contracts for the sale of goods
Directive (EU) 2019/770 concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services

C-406/10 SAS v WPL
C-666/18 Top System
C‑355/12 Nintendo v. PC Box
C-159/23 Sony v Datel Design and Development
C‑393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany
C‑410/19 Software Incubator v Computer Associates

Copyright Boundaries Software Directive 2009/24/EC Affected by cases

• interpretation requested by 62010CN0406 (C-406/10 SAS v WPL)
• A04P2 Interpreted by 62011CJ0128 (C-128/11 Usedsoft v Oracle)
• A05P1 Interpreted by 62011CJ0128 (C-128/11 Usedsoft v Oracle)
• interpretation requested by 62011CN0128 (C-128/11 Usedsoft v Oracle)
• article 4 paragraph 2 Preliminary question submitted by 62015CN0166 (C-166/15)
• article 5 paragraph 1 Preliminary question submitted by 62015CN0166 (C-166/15)
• article 5 paragraph 2 Preliminary question submitted by 62015CN0166 (C-166/15)
• Interpreted by 62018CJ0666 (C-666/18 Top System)
• article 1 paragraph 1 Preliminary question submitted by 62018CN0313 (Case C-313/18)
• article 2 paragraph 3 Preliminary question submitted by 62018CN0313 (Case C-313/18)
• article 4 paragraph 1 point (b) Preliminary question submitted by 62018CN0313 (Case C-313/18)
• article 4 Preliminary question submitted by 62018CN0666 (C-666/18 Top System)
• article 7 Preliminary question submitted by 62019CN0785
• article 7 Preliminary question submitted by 62020CN0559
• Interpreted by 62023CJ0159 (C-159/23, Sony v Datel)
• article 1 paragraph 1 Preliminary question submitted by 62023CN0159 (C-159/23, Sony v Datel)
• article 1 paragraph 2 Preliminary question submitted by 62023CN0159 (C-159/23, Sony v Datel)
• article 1 paragraph 3 Preliminary question submitted by 62023CN0159 (C-159/23, Sony v Datel)
• article 4 paragraph 1 point (b) Preliminary question submitted by 62023CN0159 (C-159/23, Sony v Datel)

CJEU ruling in C-666/18 (Top System): ruled that developers have the right to observe, study, and test software to achieve interoperability, even if license agreements say otherwise.

• The case dealt with whether a software license agreement can prohibit the licensee from observing, studying, or testing the software in ways necessary for interoperability.
• The CJEU ruled that contractual clauses prohibiting such activities are invalid under EU law if they conflict with the exceptions to copyright in Directive 2009/24/EC.
• Specifically, the ruling confirms that Article 6 of the Software Directive grants the lawful acquirer the right to observe, study, or test a program to achieve interoperability with independently created software.
• This right prevails even if the license agreement tries to restrict it

So, even if Apple’s SDK or APIs are “protected,” developers are legally allowed to create compatible software by studying and interacting with the platform, without infringing copyright or breaching license terms.This reinforces the principle that post-sale restrictions Apple tries to impose via licensing cannot override fundamental statutory exceptions. It’s another nail in the coffin of the argument that any third-party API use without a license equals infringement.

CJEU ruling in Sony v Datel (C-159/23) which directly undermines the claim that merely invoking system-level code constitutes copyright infringement.

• The court made clear that copyright protection only covers the actual source and object code of a program not the functional elements or runtime data manipulated during execution.
• Datel’s software, which changed variables temporarily in RAM on Sony’s console to alter game behavior, was ruled not to infringe because it didn’t reproduce, copy, or redistribute Sony’s code.
• By analogy, when an iOS app calls Apple’s preinstalled APIs, it does not copy or distribute Apple’s copyrighted code. It merely triggers execution of code that already resides lawfully on the user’s device.
• This kind of runtime interaction passing parameters, getting responses is exactly what Sony v Datel found to be outside copyright scope since it doesn’t create new copies or adaptations of the protected software