Apple Starts Letting Developers Add Alternative App Marketplaces to App Store Connect

[AppliedMicro]

For products and services that aren’t public utilities and aren’t essential services, yes.

Let's look at what range of products/services businesses and even governments are delivering through smartphones, their mobile operating systems and apps downloaded on them nowadays:

• Games and music/video streaming services
• Self-checkout system in supermarkets
• Access control, heating system and smart home controls for residential apartments
• Mobile driver's licences
• Public transport with journey planning are often my only
• Ride-hailing and cab-hailing
• Banking and credit cards and their 2nd-factor authentication apps
• Mobile payment online and at merchant terminals
• Customs declaration and clearance apps
• Emergency and disaster alert apps
• Videoconferencing apps (I know people that were required to use them for job interviews for government positions during the pandemic)
• ID checking for opening of bank accounts, or residence permit / visa applications (see the UK)
• Personal messaging (iMessage, WhatsApp) and payments

👉 No doubt about it: the operating system and software application stores providing the underlying platform for all that seem pretty "essential" and utility-like to me.

 

[I7guy]

Let's look at what range of products/services businesses and even governments are delivering through smartphones, their mobile operating systems and apps downloaded on them nowadays:

• Games and music/video streaming services
• Self-checkout system in supermarkets
• Access control, heating system and smart home controls for residential apartments
• Mobile driver's licences
• Public transport with journey planning are often my only
• Ride-hailing and cab-hailing
• Banking and credit cards and their 2nd-factor authentication apps
• Mobile payment online and at merchant terminals
• Customs declaration and clearance apps
• Emergency and disaster alert apps
• Videoconferencing apps (I know people that were required to use them for job interviews for government positions during the pandemic)
• ID checking for opening of bank accounts, or residence permit / visa applications (see the UK)
• Personal messaging (iMessage, WhatsApp) and payments

👉 No doubt about it: the operating system and software application stores providing the underlying platform for all that seem pretty "essential" and utility-like to me.

The above can also be done on devices other than smartphones. It's not an iphone that's essential it is the underlying cell and satellite services that enable platforms of varying form and function to perform the above list. If anything the cell carriers should be taken over by government so the government can control these essential services. Or have the government take over windows, since it is the platform of choice for 98%(appr) of the world.

 

[Abazigal]

Absolutely - I don't think the EU ever disputed that. And it, with the DMA, it confines itself to applying only necessary and proportionate measures to ensure fair competition and limit/prohibit unfair practices.

And your post above provides all the justification needed, when you're saying "Apple has got all the leverage".

The EU should break their ability to stifle or distort fair competition. Whatever it takes.

What then do you think is a reasonable way for Apple to implement the DMA while still being able to charge developers who use their IP? Because that is precisely what Apple has done here. Allow third party app stores, while still finding a way to monetise developers who choose to use it. While everyone here seems to think that Apple should not be allowed to take even a single cent.

Because the DMA doesn’t really come out and state what “fair” and “necessary” are. At least, I didn’t think it was clear, and everyone here certainly seems to have varying interpretations of how it ought to be implemented.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What then do you think is a reasonable way for Apple to implement the DMA while still being able to charge developers who use their IP?

Apple's device margins and developer subscription fees are reasonably enough.

Displaying an eBook, audio or video stream on a portable device isn't rocket science.
30% is in no way proportionately fair to charge.

While everyone here seems to think that Apple should not be allowed to take even a single cent.

They're taking enough. They're already leveraging their software IP to sell devices.

There's nothing wrong with the developer of a general-purpose operating system used by consumers not being able to charge on every transaction for digital content. In fact, it's highly undesirable for society if they're able to dictate developer terms and services in a duopoly market.

while still finding a way to monetise developers who choose to use it

They don't. iOS commissions or Core Technology Fees are not about "use of IP".

This is evidenced by the many apps that will not pay those fees - despite them using Apple's IP (Uber, food delivery, the Amazon shopping app and all other store apps for physical goods). It's only about access to customers for the delivery of physical goods - where Apple does have leverage.

It is noteworthy that Apple has been competing in most of these markets for digital goods (video, music, eBook, games, even fitness - with the notable exception of online dating ). It's an anticompetitive "tax" or - if unwilling to pay as a "reader" app - a gag order that targets competitors.

But coming back to your question:

What then do you think is a reasonable way for Apple to implement the DMA

Terms are (IMO) certainly unreasonable when they deter a large part of business users (developers of free-to-download apps) from availing themselves of the rights given to them by the DMA by introducing new fees that steer (basically "force") them to continue on Apple's old business terms and make the choice of the new business terms unfeasible.

👉 Apple inventing new "junk fees" is exactly what warrants an investigation and implementing act - and it's good that the legislation foresaw that.

👉 If Apple are charging a Core Technology Fee, it either needs to be charged non-discriminatory on Apple's App Store too - under all business terms.

👉 Or, otherwise, the app review/notarisation/signing should be considered as
a) either part of their designated core platform services (iOS and/or App Store)
b) or a core platform services in its own right.

Either way, the "gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, (...) to conclude contracts with (...) end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper."

That means that a business user can choose to conduct the transaction without using Apple's core platform service - and Apple has to allow them to do it free of charge.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The above can also be done on devices other than smartphones

True - but that doesn't negate that something is a utility.

Electricity can be generated from your own fuel-powered generator.
And personal communication over distances can be conducted through postal mail instead of iMessage, WhatsApp etc.

It's not an iphone that's essential it is the underlying cell and satellite services that enable platforms of varying form and function to perform the above list

Well, the last three of the four you quoted (driver ID, access control/home automation and self-checkout) aren't particularly enabled by mobile/satellite communication - in fact, those are not even needed for them.

Apps need an operating system to run on. When only the public transit app on my iPhones (or Android) can reasonably provide me with notifications of service disruptions and appropriate alternative travel options, that's very much relying on an OS as well.

If anything the cell carriers should be taken over by government so the government can control these essential services

They are quite closely regulated by governments and antitrust regulators.

As an example, when carriers failed to provide reasonable roaming charges in the common EU market, the EU commission stepped in with legislation that forced them to do it.

👉 Another successful example where EU regulation benefitted end users (and business users).

Or have the government take over windows, since it is the platform of choice for 98%(appr) of the world.

Microsoft surely is a better operating system developer than most governments.

Government can limit themselves to overseeing that Microsoft doesn't abuse their platform share and gatekeeping position.

 

[I7guy]

True - but that doesn't negate that something is a utility.

I think it does. A utility provides an exclusive service, such as the water company gas company.

Electricity can be generated from your own fuel-powered generator.
And personal communication over distances can be conducted through postal mail instead of iMessage, WhatsApp etc.

That doesn't negate that the electric company still is the only utility that can supply power. Just like a windows arm tablet can be used to do all of the services you mentioned prior.

Well, the last three of the four you quoted (driver ID, access control/home automation and self-checkout) aren't particularly enabled by mobile/satellite communication - in fact, those are not even needed for them.

Apps need an operating system to run on. When only the public transit app on my iPhones (or Android) can reasonably provide me with notifications of service disruptions and appropriate alternative travel options, that's very much relying on an OS as well.


They are quite closely regulated by governments and antitrust regulators.

As an example, when carriers failed to provide reasonable roaming charges in the common EU market, the EU commission stepped in with legislation that forced them to do it.

👉 Another successful example where EU regulation benefitted end users (and business users).


Microsoft surely is a better operating system developer than most governments.

Government can limit themselves to overseeing that Microsoft doesn't abuse their platform share and gatekeeping position.

You are saying smartphones are a utility, but in fact most of the list below can be accomplished without smartphones. Might as well call a credit card a utility. In my opinion, supporting your assertions with your conclusions.

• Games and music/video streaming services
• Self-checkout system in supermarkets
• Access control, heating system and smart home controls for residential apartments
• Mobile driver's licences
• Public transport with journey planning are often my only
• Ride-hailing and cab-hailing
• Banking and credit cards and their 2nd-factor authentication apps
• Mobile payment online and at merchant terminals
• Customs declaration and clearance apps
• Emergency and disaster alert apps
• Videoconferencing apps (I know people that were required to use them for job interviews for government positions during the pandemic)
• ID checking for opening of bank accounts, or residence permit / visa applications (see the UK)
• Personal messaging (iMessage, WhatsApp) and payments

 

[Abazigal]

The chief reason why I feel the DMA is not a good piece of legislation is because the EU seems extremely fond of contradictory goals (such as increasing competition while preserving user privacy). Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, and it is up to the individual companies to figure out how to deliver said outcomes, which is extremely open to interpretation, and then the EU decides whether said company is in compliance or not.

This is precisely why we are where we are today, where Apple can reveal a proposal that practically everyone here can agree is insane and not at all keeping with the spirit of the DMA, and I am still cautiously optimistic that it will be passed by the EU, because it meets the letter of the law.

That means that a business user can choose to conduct the transaction without using Apple's core platform service - and Apple has to allow them to do it free of charge.

That's not what came across in the coverage by John Gruber, though admittedly, it's also an interpretation by a third party, who is by no means an authority on how the EU would react.

Apple’s Plans for the DMA in the European Union

The delicious irony in Apple’s not knowing if these massive proposals will be deemed DMA-compliant is that their dealings with the European Commission sound exactly like App Store developers’ dealings with Apple. Do all the work to build it first, and only *then* find out if it passes muster...

daringfireball.net

In plain language, the DMA demands that Apple unbundle its monetization for the App Store from its monetization of the iOS platform. Apple’s existing, purely commission-based, monetization for iOS apps implicitly bundles together the value provided from the App Store and iOS.

The issue here, I feel, is that the EU (in addition to yourself and many others) seem overly hung-up on money, especially Apple's 30% cut. And which has led to the DMA forcing Apple to respond by declaring that this 30% is actually about 17% for the App Store and 10% for iOS (minus payment processing fees).

It's also a pretty clean way of still charging developers who opt to publish in third party app stores for access to iOS without having to vet their financials (which Apple would have to do were they to stick to a percentage-based fee, hence a flat fee makes sense).

And, that’s why apps distributed outside the App Store will only pay Apple the CTF, with no commission on sales. The commissions under the new EU rules are only for the App Store, so apps from marketplaces don’t pay them. The Core Technology Fee is how Apple proposes monetizing the value provided by iOS itself.

Like I said, the danger of unintended consequences (and Apple is very good at creating them).

👉 If Apple are charging a Core Technology Fee, it either needs to be charged non-discriminatory on Apple's App Store too - under the new business terms.

And it is, should developers opt for the reduced cost structure (see my point above). They have the option to either pay 30/15% of something, or 27/10% of something + 50 cents per app install, and it's up to those developers sticking with the App Store to decide which option best suits their business model.

Which brings me to your next point.

This is evidenced by the many apps that will not pay those fees - despite them using Apple's IP (Uber, food delivery, the Amazon shopping app and all other store apps for physical goods). It's only about access to customers for the delivery of physical goods - where Apple does have leverage.

It is important to acknowledge that the current App Store approach is (in my opinion) the most optimal way for Apple to monetise their intellectual property, not just from their perspective, but from society’s as well. Currently, anyone can publish an app for free on the App Store, and Apple gets a cut only if the app makes money. Similarly, that services like Uber, Amazon and food delivery are not charged is a feature, because this means that payment is taken only from businesses with a zero (or very minimal) marginal cost structure (ie: digital goods like IAPs, video streaming and paid apps). Which to me is a reasonable approach, as it maximises innovation while minimising deadweight loss.

The inability to recognise this is why we are where we are today. Apple had played their hand, and demonstrated how it intends to stake its claim to its intellectual property and the right to monetise it. You are all free to hate and criticise it; that does not necessarily make it wrong. The ball is now in the EU's court and they will have to decide whether or not Apple is abiding by their impossible-to-abide-by regulation, and developers will in turn have to decide if they want Apple’s old business model or the new one.

Well played, Apple. Very well played.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The issue here, I feel, is that the EU (in addition to yourself and many others) seem overly hung-up on money, especially Apple's 30% cut

The EU? Not really - it merely states (correctly) that the rates are set unilaterally, not competitively.

Me personally? Yes, I think they‘re disproportionately high. But I‘m not making laws. They should be determined competitively.

That's not what came across in the coverage by John Gruber

Gruber is sympathetic to Apple, with whim he’s (quote) „been in briefings with — multiple times over the last two days“. But seems unfamiliar with European law and/or competition law — his whole article sounds like mixing Apple‘s and his own points of view - but hardly the EU‘s.

And it is, should developers opt for the reduced cost structure

It is - I phrased it wrongly above (since corrected), although my elaboration above clearly indicates the point: The issue is that Apple deters so many developers from the new business terms - which gives an unfair advantage to their own store (by being the only sensible choice to distribute free/cheap apps, under Apple‘s old terms).

Similarly, that services like Uber, Amazon and food delivery are not charged is a feature, because this means that payment is taken only from businesses with a zero (or very minimal) marginal cost structure

Apple and their App Store itself are such a business, and…

Which to me is a reasonable approach, as it maximises innovation

It doesn‘t.

👉🏻 Particularly not since Apple are competing so much in digital goods - and they‘ve weaponised their store against innovative competitors (see the game streaming apps) that would impact their bottom line, with their fees and rules. Same thing when they‘re steering users to their „Music“ service - that‘s arguably inferior and less innovative than Spotify‘s.

Well played, Apple. Very well played

It‘ll remain „well played“ until a market investigation is under way and their rules are being found incompliant. And that is a real possibility.

 

[djphat2000]

Sure.

My first suggestion is to force Apple to provide sources for iOS to competitors royalty-free and allow them to fork the operating system for their devices.

force.
😂
To force Apple to give up core IP just so others can "try" is very laughable.
Unless you're from a communist country. Then sure.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A utility provides an exclusive service, such as the water company gas company.

So does iOS. A user (typically) has only one smartphone. And only one App Store to purchase software from. And hardly any other choices for the OS (it’s either Android or iOS).

You are saying smartphones are a utility, but in fact most of the list below can be accomplished without smartphones.

Many things can be accomplished without broadband internet - and yet it’s much more efficiently done through leveraging broadband access.

And it was regulated like a utility, even in the U.S.

Might as well call a credit card a utility

Payment cards and the electronic payments conducted with them indeed are:

„Secure, efficient, competitive and innovative electronic payments are crucial if consumers, merchants and companies are to enjoy the full benefits of the internal market“.

And they‘ve been regulated as such a (quasi-) utility by the EU. Quite successfully, I might add.

 

[AppliedMicro]

force.
😂
To force Apple to give up core IP just so others can "try" is very laughable.
Unless you're from a communist country. Then sure.

Note the context: I provided this as purely hypothetical - if government and legislation/regulation in earnest pursued the goal of making „competitors create their own OS and ecosystem“

It‘s neither realistic nor economically desirable to have a dozen mobile operating systems instead of two or (better) three or four (side note: a number that is the „sweet spot“ having been adopted as a number of cellular network licensees in most cohntries).

 

[djphat2000]

Microsoft tried and failed - with the main reason arguably being lack of third-party apps/services.

This is mostly due to them making a crap OS and trying and failing to combine their OS's into one a one size fits all. They ruined the desktop with Windows 8. And almost did with Windows 2012 by using metro. All they needed to do was to have a decent phone GUI. And a good enough underlying copy of Windows OS. They could have given themselves the time they would need to improve it over time. But, they just screwed it all up. Success they had with Xbox could have been replicated with a Windows phone. Gaming phones running Direct X. They had access to Snapdragon chips. They totally botched it.

👉 Apple in 2022 had worldwide iPhone sales (revenue over fiscal year) of more than 200 billion USD - that is more than the entire GDP of Hungary, a nation of almost 10 million people, high-income economy (according to the World Bank) and (according to Wikipedia, and I don't doubt it in this case) the "largest electronics producer in Central and Eastern Europe".

Means they are doing a great job. We have great products and more coming.

 

[AppliedMicro]

This is mostly due to them making a crap OS and trying and failing to combine their OS's into one a one size fits all.

Windows Phone was far from crap, from a user perspective. The UI was beautiful (though admittedly that depends on ones personal taste) and they „tiled“ UI lent itself very well to mobile devices.

Though I do agree that they botched Windows 8 by trying to force the same design paradigm onto their desktop OS too. Which may have played a role in alienating customers from similarly looking Windows Phones. But that’s a minor cause in the demise of Windows Phone. The hardware was good, especially after the purchase of Nokia, it was affordable - the primary issue was lack of high-quality third-party apps.

 

[djphat2000]

Apple makes that profit that from device sales.
And they have made handsome profit from a 15 years or so of App Store commissions.

so you want limits? what's the limit for success then? who/m gets to set that bar?

The suggestion is that they shouldn't be unlimited in their power to exploit their platform.

so you want limits.. same thing again what's the limit? how do you get more product and services from apple if your going to limit their ability to profit from any success they may get?

you can regulate competition, but you can't regulate how much anyone makes. the system would fall apart the moment you did that.

 

[I7guy]

So does iOS. A user (typically) has only one smartphone.

That's a stretch. IOS is a software product not a public utility.

And only one App Store to purchase software from.

Yep. Perfectly legit.

And hardly any other choices for the OS (it’s either Android or iOS).

And hundreds of phone manufacturers.

Many things can be accomplished without broadband internet - and yet it’s much more efficiently done through leveraging broadband access.

And it was regulated like a utility, even in the U.S.

Payment cards and the electronic payments conducted with them indeed are:

„Secure, efficient, competitive and innovative electronic payments are crucial if consumers, merchants and companies are to enjoy the full benefits of the internal market“.

And they‘ve been regulated as such a (quasi-) utility by the EU. Quite successfully, I might add.

Still, it feels you are proving your assertions with the conclusions and I feel we have covered this ground before. The fact they have been regulated is a done deal, but it doesn't mean you assertions prove your conclusions.

 

[AppliedMicro]

so you want limits? what's the limit for success then? who/m gets to set that bar?

A lasting monopoly or duopoly in which companies can dictate prices and terms of business.

so you want limits.. same thing again what's the limit?

Let the prices/fees/commission for distribution/sale of mobile software application be determined by competition in a competitive market.

how do you get more product and services from apple if your going to limit their ability to profit from any success they may get?

I don‘t need more services from Apple.
I need them to stop stifling the many other developers and their ability to competitively offer them.

As for the operating system features and hardware, I reiterate that Apple makes enough from device sales.

but you can't regulate how much anyone makes

Of course you can: the EU has done it for cellular roaming and consumer card payment charges.
To the benefit of consumers and (card-accepting) merchants that depend on such services and platforms.

👉🏻 Regulation can be really good for consumers and smaller/medium-sized businesses, when regulating how much someone makes.

👉🏻 And the systems didn’t fall apart - quite the contrary. Their usage increased.

What’s the common denominator? These systems are merely an intermediary or facilitator for communication/transactions between third parties. Just like, yes, the Apple App Store.

(„But… but… that‘s just communist!“ and „EU and its companies are losers!“ - I‘m already bracing myself…).

 

[djphat2000]

What then do you think is a reasonable way for Apple to implement the DMA while still being able to charge developers who use their IP? Because that is precisely what Apple has done here. Allow third party app stores, while still finding a way to monetise developers who choose to use it. While everyone here seems to think that Apple should not be allowed to take even a single cent.

Because the DMA doesn’t really come out and state what “fair” and “necessary” are. At least, I didn’t think it was clear, and everyone here certainly seems to have varying interpretations of how it ought to be implemented.

They don't want to admit that they don't want Apple to make anything off the tech they created. It should just be "open" because we have no idea on how to make a good alternative. Just give us free access to the customers already! They also tend to be the same folks that think Apple doesn't innovate or come up with anything new. They over charge for everything, and give the consumer little to nothing. Why all the hype? What's the hype about this time crowd. My android had that 41 years ago, and why don't Apple let us tinker with their stuff??? Blah blah blah.

We should have a solid 5 mobile OS's. Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android, WebOS (Palm), and iOS. A solid 5 "different" from each other mobile OS's doing it their own way. And for a time we did. Then consumers picked what they wanted, and here we are. I wish for the sake of these arguments that there still was those other OS's and plenty of hardware makers to support it. Which there are. This way they could leave Apple alone to do what they do in peace.

 

[djphat2000]

A lasting monopoly or duopoly in which companies can dictate prices and terms of business.

This sounds either incomplete or contradictory. The market dictates price.

Let the prices/fees/commission for distribution/sale of mobile software application be determined by competition in a competitive market.

Again, it is. The new rules have stated the how this can be accomplished. And Apple complied.

I don‘t need more services from Apple.
I need them to stop stifling the many other developers and their ability to competitively offer them.

This is admitting that it's Apples customers. Developers want a cheaper shot at those customers. They aren't entitled to that. Not without paying for access. Which Apple "is" entitled to get.

As for the operating system features and hardware, I reiterate that Apple makes enough from device sales.

You nor anyone else can make that claim. They make what the market will bear. No more no less. They make what people are willing to purchase from them.

Of course you can: the EU has done it for cellular roaming and consumer card payment charges.
To the benefit of consumers and (card-accepting) merchants that depend on such services and platforms.

👉🏻 Regulation can be really good for consumers and smaller/medium-sized businesses, when regulating how much someone makes.

👉🏻 And the systems didn’t fall apart - quite the contrary. Their usage increased.

So there is a limit on how much (in the EU) roaming costs are? Is it free after a certain amount?

What’s the common denominator? These systems are merely an intermediary or facilitator for communication/transactions between third parties. Just like, yes, the Apple App Store.

Apple made the facilities. Apple Pay, Apple AppStore, iOS, iPhone/iPad. Is that just an intermediary?

(„But… but… that‘s just communist!“ and „EU and its companies are losers!“ - I‘m already bracing myself…).

It's communist thinking to regulate how much a company can make. And I said a long long long time ago about these new rules, that it was about the money. It's always about the money. And all the EU had to do was to tax Google and Microsoft, and Apple more heavily. Which would have done a better job than trying to regulate as they did.
And I don't think anyone would have complained about it as much.

 

[Abazigal]

As for the operating system features and hardware, I reiterate that Apple makes enough from device sales.

I see this argument being floated numerous times, and I still cannot accept why it has to be an "either / or" situation.

Yes, consoles are typically sold at a heavily-subsidised rate which the manufacturer eventually recoups by charging game developers 30%. But that's a business decision, not one borne out of charity. Apple chose to price their products as expensive as they are (which in turn means that Apple will never have the majority market share for any of their products). It's a conscious decision to go after the higher-end segment of the market (ie: people who can and are willing to pay a premium for nice things), precisely so Apple can continue to sell them more stuff after the initial sale of the iPhone, from additional hardware to apps to services. The higher price is also what pays for 5-6 years of software updates and the various services like Maps, Siri and iMessage, none of which Apple monetises via other means like ad revenue.

Likewise, there is no logic as to why the App Store should be run as a loss leader funded solely via hardware profits. Or would you rather Apple charge developers a higher annual fee, or some other means of monetising their IP?

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with Apple double (or triple, or even quadruple) dipping. Google gave up that right when they decided to pursue a licensing model and chase profitless market share with Android. Microsoft has pretty much perfected the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because they somehow always end up fumbling in the implementation when it mattered the most. You reap what you sow, and if anything, Apple has earned the right to, simply by virtue of them being the only company willing to even invest billions in having an ecosystem in the first place.

Whether Apple has made enough money or not is besides the point. Nobody gets to make that call besides the people running Apple.

(„But… but… that‘s just communist!“ and „EU and its companies are losers!“ - I‘m already bracing myself…).

I wouldn't use the term "communist". More like "protectionist". The DMA is basically an admission by the EU that it cannot hope to compete with US tech giants, in part because the economic and cultural conditions that fostered their creation and growth simply do not appear to exist in the EU.

Like you said, the EU does many things right, from roaming to merchant fees, and a way stronger social safety net compared to the US. However, there is also the saying - there is good in bad, and there is bad in good. This more comfortable way of life in the EU also leads to less drive, because how many people are willing to venture out of their comfort zone and toil long hours in a bid to create the big thing (EU law wouldn't even allow it).

I mean, just read the story of the creation of the 1st gen iPhone. It could only ever happen in America!

I live in Singapore, where our rigid education system has often been criticised for producing workers who tend to be less risk-averse in general. I have a fairly stable job as a government civil servant, and at this stage in my life, I wouldn't leave it in order to strike out on my own, but I also recognise the importance that somebody else somewhere out there in the world does, else all technology advancement will stop, because nobody wants to take the risk of disrupting the status quo and invent the next big thing.

I guess each party is simply doing what is best for their own interests. Apple naturally wants to preserve their margins, the EU wants to ensure healthy competition for their own small businesses (though I am pretty sure that Spotify has had a hand in crafting the DMA), and I guess, well, let them fight and we will see who ultimately prevails.

I really don't know where I am going with this. It's like the story of the oak tree and the reed. Sure, the oak tree eventually encounters a gale so strong that it ends up toppling over, but until that day comes, it will continue to stand tall and proud in the face of opposition.

Apple is that oak tree, and I am not ready to count Apple out of the fight just yet.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They don't want to admit that they don't want Apple to make anything off the tech they created

…just as you won‘t admit the commission has become an unfair tax on competitors‘ services - that enables Apple to

It‘s not an equitable fee for all developers to „give back“ to Apple for „use of tech/IP“ and making money off it. As evidence by the many apps that make tons of money and employ more of Apple’s proprietary tech (e.g. Uber) - while not having to pay anything (except the yearly developer fee).

Apple is free to price their iPhones and make as much of them as they want. Just as consumers are free to only use free apps on them - a case in which Apple makes nothing from it.

But I readily admit that I don‘t want Apple to do unfair double-dipping on digital goods/services only - especially when they‘re competing in with their own products in so many of them themselves.

Just give us free access to the customers already!

You say it yourself: it is not about the „tech they created“.

It‘s only about gatekeeping access to customers - on products where they have absolute leverage to enforce it.
Again, I‘m not saying that companies should provide others/competitors access to their customer base for free.

But governments and regulators should not allow them to
- charge what they want“
- and how they want it
- in monopoly or duopoly markets that serve 70, 80 ore more percent of all consumers in the country
- particularly when the gatekeeper engage in competition against others for unrelated services

👉🏻 I‘m honestly at a loss how anyone can justify let alone endorse that as beneficial for innovation, the overall economy or society.

(Whereas I can, kind of, get the security argument of having a central gatekeeper, irrespective of if Apple is good at that)

 

[AppliedMicro]

The market dictates price.

There is no functioning market for mobile application stores. Hence, prices aren't dictated by a market.

The new rules have stated the how this can be accomplished. And Apple complied.

Not unless reasonably fair market conditions emerge. Just wait for the EU's response.

This is admitting that it's Apples customers. Developers want a cheaper shot at those customers. They aren't entitled to that. Not without paying for access. Which Apple "is" entitled to get.

Currently they are Apple's customers. And eventually, when legislation comes into force, developers will be entitled at "a cheaper shot" at those customers. In the EU and elsewhere. Governments will (and need to) force Apple to do so.

So there is a limit on how much (in the EU) roaming costs are? Is it free after a certain amount?

It's "free" (same price as at home) within fair use parameters that cover occasional stays abroad (e.g. holidays).
There are prices caps above that.

Apple made the facilities. Apple Pay, Apple AppStore, iOS, iPhone/iPad. Is that just an intermediary?

Apple Pay or the App Store (which are the ones I mentioned) are of course intermediaries - they serve transactions that are ultimately between third-party businesses and end users - not Apple.

It's communist thinking to regulate how much a company can make.

It's not. Apple owns their IP and they're able to benefit from it. Putting a cap on company's profit, monetising scheme or limiting ownership rights doesn't take make their products or IP owned by the community. Ownership rights are never limitless in capitalist or market-based economies - that doesn't make them communist.

And all the EU had to do was to tax Google and Microsoft,

The government can't - they can't favour individual companies.
And it wouldn't solve anything: It would not lead to more competition or liberty for business users or consumes.
It wouldn't address the core issue: That one company can dictate business terms - as long as they can, they can just pass trough the tax.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple chose to price their products as expensive as they are (which in turn means that Apple will never have the majority market share for any of their products)

...and they chose their developer subscription to cost $99 a year.
Which includes app review and notarisation.
Uber doesn't have to pay anything more.

Likewise, there is no logic as to why the App Store should be run as a loss leader

It's not. It would be a profitable business at a fraction of its current size/volume.
Apple chose to offer developers free distribution of their apps - they can change that anytime.

I mean, just read the story of the creation of the 1st gen iPhone. It could only ever happen in America!

I'm not following.

Nokia in Finland (EU) offered mobile phones and smartphones well before Apple did.
Did Apple supplant them with a more popular product, particularly a better browser? Yes.
But why would it not be possible in Europe? There's nothing in EU law preventing that.
Where the U.S., admittedly, is ahead of Europe is the computer hardware and software industry, and monetising it towards consumers.

 

[Abazigal]

It's not. It would be a profitable business at a fraction of its current size/volume.
Apple chose to offer developers free distribution of their apps - they can change that anytime.

I don't think you quite grasp the implications of what you are suggesting.

Look at the uproar when Apple is proposing an alternative to their current billing structure. This just shows there isn't really any best practice when it comes to charging developers, only what is to an individual's best interests, and what isn't.

The current App Store model is a win-win-win for all parties. Small developers don't need to pay Apple anything for the distribution of free apps. This in turn attracts more people to release apps on iOS, because the barrier to entry is so low. Which in turn adds value to iOS devices, benefiting Apple.

Switching to a per-app download fee means that a developer of a free app would suddenly be on the hook for a bill of at least half a million dollars should their app ever get over a million downloads. It's a rounding error for the likes of Facebook, Epic, Uber, even Amazon, but it would bankrupt any small developer who isn't earning a cent off their free app.

Does it seem unfair that a trillion dollar company like Facebook gets to release their app on the App Store and not have to pay a cent? Perhaps, but the challenge is in distinguishing between a free app that was cobbled together by a hobbyist developer in their free time, vs a free app that acts as a portal to the services provided by a trillion dollar tech company.

Not to mention that should Apple's cut of App Store revenue decrease, they will probably start searching elsewhere to make up for the shortfall, such as increasing the annual developer fee. Which would in turn reduce the number of small developers making apps for the App Store, especially if they are not making a cent off them. Like I said, the danger of unintended consequences.

Apple bills a developer 30% of their app revenue because that's the easiest way of collecting money (as part of payment via iTunes), and to me, it makes sense because paid mobile apps tend to have zero marginal cost structure (ie: those who earn more, pay more, not at all unlike personal taxation). If any of you have a better suggestion aside from suggesting that Apple drop their 30% cut altogether, I am all ears.

But why would it not be possible in Europe? There's nothing in EU law preventing that.

Have you not wondered why the companies being targeted by the DMA are all American companies, how they ended up growing to be as big as they did, and why there are basically zero tech giants in the EU? Even Nokia and Blackberry in their heyday were nowhere close to being a platform of their own.

Check out the video I linked above. It has less to do with EU law (though maybe unions do play a part), and more to do with their work ethic and culture. I do stress that this is by no means a criticism of the EU's way of life. All other things equal, I too would opt for less work and better work / life balance, and leave the burden of coming up with the next big thing to somebody else, but as I also noted above, there is often good in bad, just as there is bad in good.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Small developers don't need to pay Apple anything for the distribution of free apps. This in turn attracts more people to release apps on iOS, because the barrier to entry is so low

More isn‘t necessarily better (in quality, for instance).

The current App Store model is a win-win-win for all parties

Certainly not. Spotify, Netflix and Epic games can handle in-app payments at much lower cost than Apple themselves. That would benefit them - and also consumers if they can manage their subscription in-app.

Switching to a per-app download fee means that a developer of a free app would suddenly be on the hook for a bill of at least half a million dollars should their app ever get over a million downloads

👉🏻 So why did Apple impose a per-app download fee as part of their new business terms?

Answer: Greed. Preferencing their own App Store. Not the interests of small developers.

Does it seem unfair that a trillion dollar company like Facebook gets to release their app on the App Store and not have to pay a cent?

Why should they pay commission, if they aren’t making any sales on it?

What’s even more unfair: Uber offering a free-to-download app AND making millions in in-app sales - without paying a dime (save for Apple Pay, optionally).

There’s nothing „fair“ about the distinction between physical goods/services and digital ones. It‘s only Apple having different leverage. As you say: the „easiest way“ to do it.

Not to mention that should Apple's cut of App Store revenue decrease, they will probably start searching elsewhere to make up for the shortfall, such as increasing the annual developer fee. Which would in turn reduce the number of small developers making apps for the App Store, especially if they are not making a cent off them. Like I said, the danger of unintended consequences.

If Apple is unwilling to make a decent, fair and competitive offer to small developers, that’s Apple’s decision. The DMA isn‘t asking for much more than conditions being competitively determined - rather than being set unilaterally. Lawmakers and regulators shouldn’t pre-empt such a potential decision from Apple by shying away from regulating in the first place.

Have you not wondered why the companies being targeted by the DMA are all American companies, how they ended up growing to be as big as they did

The U.S. has historically been at the forefront of computer and software technology.
English, the predominant language in IT being their (de facto) national certainly helps to cement their position.

Also, their hands-off approach to capitalism and economic/technical regulation and general monetary greed - coupled with a relatively widespread ruthlessness and lack of decency and ethics in doing business - favours such behemoth companies developing.

Why do we have all these pesky cookie banners? It‘s not because of EU overregulation - it‘s because of the US online advertising industry that couldn‘t get enough of stalking internet users on their every move and activity, creepier than the creepiest real-life stalkers.

 

[I7guy]

More isn‘t necessarily better (in quality, for instance).


Certainly not. Spotify, Netflix and Epic games can handle in-app payments at much lower cost than Apple themselves. That would benefit them - and also consumers if they can manage their subscription in-app.

Certainly you’re making the case the dam benefits the big developers with little impact to the consumers.

👉🏻 So why did Apple impose a per-app download fee as part of their new business terms?

Because the EU made iOS into a public utility and took away their profits.

Answer: Greed. Preferencing their own App Store. Not the interests of small developers.

Man, I would like to see your compensation tapped by the eu and then see if the word “greed” is then being thrown around as if people really know or understand.

Why should they pay commission, if they aren’t making any sales on it?

Because they are using apples up.

What’s even more unfair: Uber offering a free-to-download app AND making millions in in-app sales - without paying a dime (save for Apple Pay, optionally).

No, those are the rules. Develop your own ecosystem beloved by all and you can make the rules.

There’s nothing „fair“ about the distinction between physical goods/services and digital ones. It‘s only Apple having different leverage. As you say: the „easiest way“ to do it.

According to your opinion.

If Apple is unwilling to make a decent, fair and competitive offer to small developers, that’s Apple’s decision.

They did.

The DMA isn‘t asking for much more than conditions being competitively determined - rather than being set unilaterally. Lawmakers and regulators shouldn’t pre-empt such a potential decision from Apple by shying away from regulating in the first place.

The DMA made it good for large developers, we’ll see about small developers.

The U.S. has historically been at the forefront of computer and software technology.
English, the predominant language in IT being their (de facto) national certainly helps to cement their position.

Also, their hands-off approach to capitalism and economic/technical regulation and general monetary greed - coupled with a relatively widespread ruthlessness and lack of decency and ethics in doing business - favours such behemoth companies developing.

Why do we have all these pesky cookie banners? It‘s not because of EU overregulation - it‘s because of the US online advertising industry that couldn‘t get enough of stalking internet users on their every move and activity, creepier than the creepiest real-life stalkers.

Or in the flip side, like google results. Someone hasn’t pay for it.

I feel as if this ground has been covered ad-nauseous.