A whole lot of after-the fact rationalization for the EU taking away Apple's ability to charge developers for the hard work Apple does that allow developers' businesses to function like a two bit socialist republic.
Do you think Apple is providing developers something of value by creating and maintaining iOS and the associated APIs? If the answer is yes, why is 13-27% of the money they made (money they would not have made if Apple did not provide iOS and those APIs) not fair renumeration, when 30% is the industry standard across multiple app stores in multiple industries? Where would you set it? Why is Apple wrong? And if they are, why can't the EU be bothered to give a number they'd accept when they micromanage things like Apple's API choices, default apps, onboarding experience, and engineering decisions? All of that is ok to regulate but picking a number is getting too involved?
There’s no disputes that Apple should be paid for specific services. But in a court this value must be defined by actual data instead of vacuous claims. The DMA requires them to unbundle their fees and prove they’re charging for actual value to be compensated for the initial acquisition.
Your harking over why the EU won't give a number when the documents show Apple never proposed a defensible calculation. Apple wants the EU to design their pricing because any honest valuation of "initial acquisition" would be far lower than their current fees. If Apple wants to take 1.000.000€ year developer fee or 99% commission rates on the store and have a 30% revenue share for anyone using Xcode then they can.
But Apple is essentially arguing: "
Trust us, we create lots of value, therefore any fee we choose is justified". This approach fails basic legal standards. Apple has not presented calculations, benchmarks, or methodologies that would satisfy these evidentiary requirements.
The EU's declaration that Apple can't charge developers for the underlying intellectual property that makes their apps function is ludicrous and an affront to the free market. No one is forced to develop for iOS, iOS has < 30% of the market in the EU, and yet the government declares "Apple's property is free to all who want access to it".
If Apple truly provides specific value worth 13-27% plus €0.50 per download, they need to present data showing what that value consists of, how they calculated it, and why it's proportionate to the specific service provided in regard to being remunerated for initial customer acquisition.
With a thought process like that, it's no wonder the only EU consumer tech company of note literally makes its billions exploiting the hard work of others. Apparently freeload, freeload, freeload is the name of the game in the EU. (Why is it not surprising they're also at the front of the line demanding to freeload from Apple)
Market share is still irrelevant to market power, this isn’t a monopoly case. The DMA doesn’t stop Apple charging for their value, it stops them charging for nothing without stating what that is different from the other fees. Until they can show how €0.50 per reinstall relates to ”
initial acquisition”or why a 12-27% fee on external payments is ”
matchmaking” they’re just proving the EU’s case. As well as agreeing their business terms was illegal.
Apple wants a tollbooth on innovation even when you don’t use their road.
The case documents reveal Apple making several crucial admissions that undermine their position.
First, Apple acknowledges in paragraph 216 that gatekeepers cannot charge fees "if the initial acquisition happened without the involvement of the gatekeeper." This admission creates a massive problem for their Core Technology Fee, which charges €0.50 for every download regardless of how users discovered the app.
Think through the implications: if a user finds an app through external advertising, downloads it directly, and never uses Apple's discovery systems, what "
initial acquisition" service did Apple provide? Apple's own legal position says they shouldn't charge anything in these cases, yet their CTF applies universally.
Second, Apple admits that "
initial acquisition can, by definition, happen only once" and occurs even without Apple's involvement when "
the user has already been acquired by the app developer prior to downloading."
This acknowledgment completely contradicts their ongoing fee structure for alternative payments.
(216)Apple correctly notes that the gatekeeper is not entitled to charge any fee if the initial acquisition happened without the involvement of the gatekeeper. Indeed, the inclusion of the words "if applicable" in recital 40 of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 in relation to remuneration for the initial acquisition acknowledges that there may be instances where the gatekeeper was not involved in facilitating the initial acquisition and that, therefore, the gatekeeper may not seek remuneration in such instances.
Apple also acknowledges that an initial acquisition can, by definition, happen only once. The user can therefore be considered
acquired even if there was no involvement from Apple, where the user has already been acquired by the app developer prior to downloading its app through the App Store.
The Commission's assessment of Apple's arguments
(269) The Commission finds that Apple has acted at the very least negligently, as it could not have been unaware that the measures described in Section 4 of this Decision did not comply with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925.
(270) First, Apple does not dispute that the Original Business Terms do not comply with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 in that they totally prohibit steering within the app and Apple could not be unaware that all the conditions imposed by it under the New Business Terms and the New Music Streaming Business Terms restrict the developer's ability to steer.
