Apple to Collect 27% Commission on Third-Party App Payment Systems in the Netherlands

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, the 30% commission is what Apple is really fighting for. Regulators going after IAP or the App Store are missing the forest for the trees. Apple's fundamental position is that by by virtue of its investments into iOS, silicon, APIs, hardware, marketing, etc. it has cultivated an extremely valuable set of customers and if you want to tap into that you need to give them a cut. IAP and the App Store are just the methods they use to collect that rent. Regulators can (and will) go after them all they want and Apple will just find a new way to collect its commission (as I said before, if sideloading is enforced Apple will go after it at the Dev Account level).

No one (regulators, courts, lawmakers, etc.) has actually come out and said "Apple is not entitled to a commission". They've just gotten into fights with Apple over the current ways Apple collects it. Apple can credibly argue that, given that it is owed a commission, mandating IAP and the App Store are a good idea because they make it simple for Apple to collect it and are simple for consumers. But those are just proxy battles over the fundamental issue. And once regulators have forced Apple to cede its payment and distribution exclusivity, they'll have to actually address the elephant in the room. And I think getting Apple to actually lower its commissions is going to be much, much harder than going after IAP or the App Store. I can see two ways to do that:

1. Straight up cap the fee. This is complicated because there's no "right" answer. What exactly is Apple entitled to anyway? Ten years ago 30% was fine. Now it's not. Is the answer 5%, 10%, 20%? iOS isn't really a utility. It's much easier to say "add another store for competition" then make a value judgement like that.
2. Go after Apple's "monopoly" on dev accounts. Basically say Apple can't be the only one providing APIs, tools, notarization. This would "work" but it would basically be a nightmare to implement and doesn't even make sense. Apple makes the platform, it makes no sense for a third party to provide the accounts and signing.

IAP and the App Store are the comparatively easy pickings. Regulators will go after them first and find themselves right back in square one, with no easy way to move forward.

It will likely be that the regulators will go after this in the right order.
First apple had to abandon control of IAP as they just did, but countering with the 27% fee.

This will very likely spring the trap on apple, especially as some recent groundbreaking European court of Justice rulings( equivalent to US Supreme Court) that have just happened in the end of 2021 in other lawsuits
1: they ruled first sale exhaustion includes licensed software sold at fixed price.
case UsedSoft v Oracle
And reinforced Directive 86/653/EEC) (the “Commercial Agents Directive”)
Of the first sale doctrine

2: software sold with a perpetual use license counts as a sale of goods and Exhaustion of intellectual property rights
The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd.
That it includes downloaded software. 2021 reinforcing the 2016 ruling to cover more digital software.

Thes rulings Under EU law, once a good protected by an intellectual property right has been put lawfully on the market within the European Union (i.e. by the right holder or with his or her consent), the rights conferred by that intellectual property right in relation to the commercial exploitation of the good become exhausted. In that case, the right holder can no longer invoke the intellectual property right in question to prevent the further resale, rental, lending or other forms of commercial exploitation of the goods

This means apple don’t have a right to exploit the sold app for more commercial exploitation after first sale to consumers unless the developers agree to pay for this service

But we will se in the next few days likely.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, but those developers haven’t argued for mandating a lower cut (which would be difficult to do).

They’ve argued against Apple’s current mechanisms for enforcing the cut. As Apple has shown in the Netherlands, getting rid of that will just lead to Apple to create a new mechanism. Basically, Apple might lose the battle but they’re winning the war.

I honestly believe apple will win the proxy wars but they will lose the actual wars as they dig their own grave legally speaking

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

It will likely be that the regulators will go after this in the right order.
First apple had to abandon control of IAP as they just did, but countering with the 27% fee.

This will very likely spring the trap on apple, especially as some recent groundbreaking European court of Justice rulings( equivalent to US Supreme Court) that have just happened in the end of 2021 in other lawsuits
1: they ruled first sale exhaustion includes licensed software sold at fixed price.
case UsedSoft v Oracle
And reinforced Directive 86/653/EEC) (the “Commercial Agents Directive”)
Of the first sale doctrine

2: software sold with a perpetual use license counts as a sale of goods and Exhaustion of intellectual property rights
The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates (UK) Ltd.
That it includes downloaded software. 2021 reinforcing the 2016 ruling to cover more digital software.

Thes rulings Under EU law, once a good protected by an intellectual property right has been put lawfully on the market within the European Union (i.e. by the right holder or with his or her consent), the rights conferred by that intellectual property right in relation to the commercial exploitation of the good become exhausted. In that case, the right holder can no longer invoke the intellectual property right in question to prevent the further resale, rental, lending or other forms of commercial exploitation of the goods

This means apple don’t have a right to exploit the sold app for more commercial exploitation after first sale to consumers unless the developers agree to pay for this service

But we will se in the next few days likely.

Interesting. But my point still stands. If Apple's current strategy to collect their commission fails, they will create a new one. They will do this over and over until regulators examine the commission itself. In which case I think it will be soundly in Apple's favor. It's their IP, and they have the right to charge for it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again, my stance is similar to side loading. As long as I can stick to my "walled garden" and will continue to have iTunes Billing as an option (hopefully Apple can be allowed to enforce this), then I have no issues with alternatives. The only point where I start to disagree is when options start getting removed - as in the option of all apps are on the App Store and app IAP will have iTunes Billing available. ADDITIONS of options are fine, REPLACEMENT/REMOVAL of options are where I start having issues.

If Apple is allowed to enforce both IAP and App Distribution in a way where, it can be on 20 different stores but also MUST be on the App Store and similarly with IAP, I do not have ANY concerns with both issues at hand.

Perfect example is my attitude to right to repair. I never do it and never will, but I am fine advocating those of you that WANT to repair yourself. As long as my option still exist in a guaranteed way, bring on the side loading and alternate payment options.

Absolutely I would say apple is well within its rights to demand developers provide an IAP solution using iTunes billing and its benefits with the 30% cut.
But developers should be allowed to include a third party payment solution with a 0% cut to apple with none of the benefits iTunes billing comes with. And I would say obviously apple have a right to a cut of first sale and could request other service costs on free apps unrelated to its revenue

And I would say absolutely it sounds like a good idea if Apple is allowed to enforce App Distribution in a way where, it can be on 20 different stores with IAP + competing solution) but also MUST be on the App Store with their cut or competing stores/ their website with 0% cut and still not count as a sale in apple’s store etc.

but I would say I wouldn’t personally advocate for more stores as long alternative payment solution is provided in apps

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Interesting. But my point still stands. If Apple's current strategy to collect their commission fails, they will create a new one. They will do this over and over until regulators examine the commission itself. In which case I think it will be soundly in Apple's favor. It's their IP, and they have the right to charge for it.

This is actually apple weakest defense as they still run up to the exhaustion of digital IP by first sale. The app sold isn’t their IP.

The sold iPhone becomes consumers property and that example is no longer part of apple’s IP rights as well.

Apple will be allowed to collect a commission or fee as long as untill the app is purchased and downloaded on the device, then apple no longer have a legal claim over its revenue streams

In EU purchasing a potato, TV, Car, iPhone, apps, downloaded software etc etc are exactly the same and trigger the first sale exhaustion

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

This is actually apple weakest defense as they still run up to the exhaustion of digital IP by first sale. The app sold isn’t their IP.

The sold iPhone becomes consumers property and that example is no longer part of apple’s IP rights as well.

Apple will be allowed to collect a commission or fee as long as untill the app is purchased and downloaded on the device, then apple no longer have a legal claim over its revenue streams

In EU purchasing a potato, TV, Car, iPhone, apps, downloaded software etc etc are exactly the same and trigger the first sale exhaustion

The app itself is not Apple's IP.

But all the things needed to create an iOS app- APIs, Xcode, etc. is Apple's IP. And they are free to charge a commission for using that IP.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Interesting. But my point still stands. If Apple's current strategy to collect their commission fails, they will create a new one. They will do this over and over until regulators examine the commission itself. In which case I think it will be soundly in Apple's favor. It's their IP, and they have the right to charge for it.

Because the commission itself isn’t illegal and they probably won’t care for it. The problem they will likely have is forcing a commission on a service they didn’t provide. The EU will hammer apple hard on In app purchases mandate as anticompetitive. And a commission as anti competitive to disincentivizing developers from user anything but their solution

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The app itself is not Apple's IP.

But all the things needed to create an iOS app- APIs, Xcode, etc. is Apple's IP. And they are free to charge a commission for using that IP.

They already charge them a developer members fee to submit an app. Xcode is provided for free(legally important) and not stated to be payed by a commission.

And they take a cut of first sale. Anything after the first sale is committed counts as transfer of ownership from apple to consumer. This exhaust apples claim for any future revenue from alternative revenue streams.

Apple haven’t demanded a commission on any Xcode developed cydia app sold for money and with IAP in 13 years. This makes it hard for apple to argue it’s case as it’s willfully ignored this market.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Because the commission itself isn’t illegal and they probably won’t care for it. The problem they will likely have is forcing a commission on a service they didn’t provide. The EU will hammer apple hard on In app purchases mandate as anticompetitive. And a commission as anti competitive to disincentivizing developers from user anything but their solution

Apple doesn't need IAP to collect their commission.
They don't need the App Store to collect their commission.
They will collect fees on their APIs through Apple Dev Account- if you have Apple Dev Account, you must send Apple invoice of your revenue and give Apple their cut, regardless of whether you distribute on App Store, with IAP, etc. The cost of the Dev Account will be revenue sharing, instead of $99/year. That will be the licensing terms.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

They already charge them a developer members fee to submit an app. Xcode is provided for free(legally important) and not stated to be payed by a commission.

And they take a cut of first sale. Anything after the first sale is committed counts as transfer of ownership from apple to consumer. This exhaust apples claim for any future revenue from alternative revenue streams.

Apple haven’t demanded a commission on any Xcode developed cydia app sold for money and with IAP in 13 years. This makes it hard for apple to argue it’s case as it’s willfully ignored this market.

1) Apple can change the terms of its licensing to make things more clear
2) Apple can argue that Cydia was a tint market not worth its time- similar to how it goes after companies that sell Hackintoshes but never bothers with individuals. That doesn't make Hackintoshing legal.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple doesn't need IAP to collect their commission.
They don't need the App Store to collect their commission.
They will collect fees on their APIs through Apple Dev Account- if you have Apple Dev Account, you must send Apple invoice of your revenue and give Apple their cut, regardless of whether you distribute on App Store, with IAP, etc. The cost of the Dev Account will be revenue sharing, instead of $99/year. That will be the licensing terms.

EU

Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union​

does have extremely harsh laws and regulations on anti competitive behavior of a dominant business (apple vs developers)
There is no precedent case law for forced revenue sharing and could effectively trigger a nuclear option

1) Apple can change the terms of its licensing to make things more clear
2) Apple can argue that Cydia was a tint market not worth its time- similar to how it goes after companies that sell Hackintoshes but never bothers with individuals. That doesn't make Hackintoshing legal.

And it was companies selling apps in cydia.
Well funny tho hackintosh are legal in Germany after apple lost a lawsuit for breach of license.

And it’s licensing term might still be invalidated after first sale as currently interpreted.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

does have extremely harsh laws and regulations on anti competitive behavior of a dominant business (apple vs developers)

There is nothing anti-competitive about it. If you want to develop on Apple's platforms, then Apple gets a cut. Same as how on a PlayStation, you can sell in the official store OR a physical copy but Sony gets royalty either way.

There is no precedent case law for forced revenue sharing and could effectively trigger a nuclear option

You can call it a "royalty" or whatever. But they will have a very hard time arguing that Apple isn't entitled to compensation for use of its platform and IP. I'm curious what the nuclear option is? As I said, alternative stores are not a nuclear option. Apple will still get a commission.

 

[Maximara]

Are you saying the Netflix or Facebook apps, just as examples … are Apple IP? How far goes the definition of Apple IP?

The closest analog that comes to my mind is cable TV - Apple is the provider of access but doesn't actually make the individual channel (App) content. It's not a perfect analog but is is similar in many ways.

 

[clevins]

Develoers: This is all about alternate payment systems. We should be able to use those if we want, even when selling via the App Store!

Apple: OK. But we're still going to charge you.

Developers: TOO MUCH!!!

So is this about the percentage or the payment system? Because if it's about the percentage then the Netherlands should look at other software vendors online software distribution (Xbox live etc). "But Apple is a monopoly!!!" Uh... use Android. "But I don't wanna. I want to use Apple stuff and they should run their business how I want them to!!!"
No.

 

[Maximara]

And it was companies selling apps in cydia.
Well funny tho hackintosh are legal in Germany after apple lost a lawsuit for breach of license.

Interesting as hackintosh are illegal under US copyright law (DMCA) per Apple vs Psystar and the EU has something similar in the form of EUCD (European Copyright Directive), aka Directive 2001/29/EC.

"Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention."

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Interesting as hackintosh are illegal under US copyright law (DMCA) per Apple vs Psystar and the EU has something similar in the form of EUCD (European Copyright Directive), aka Directive 2001/29/EC.

"Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention."

In EU it fell on the fact shrink wrap licensing is not legal in Germany in anyway. Meaning the business had not agreed to any contract and was the legal owner of their copy. They could install it on a Pc, modify it and sell it.

Essentially they could just purchase a bunch of CDs and install them and ignore the agreement as it was displayed after purchase. And EUCD can’t prevent reselling or modification of something that you bought and with no contract.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There is nothing anti-competitive about it. If you want to develop on Apple's platforms, then Apple gets a cut. Same as how on a PlayStation, you can sell in the official store OR a physical copy but Sony gets royalty either way.

You would be surprised what is considered anti competitive in EU. This is not USA with weal laws.

And actually in the Sony store everything is sold as DLC in the store and not in the game. So not equivalent

You can call it a "royalty" or whatever. But they will have a very hard time arguing that Apple isn't entitled to compensation for use of its platform and IP. I'm curious what the nuclear option is? As I said, alternative stores are not a nuclear option. Apple will still get a commission.

They won’t as the original contract is still terminated on the point of sale as apple already dug themselves deeper legally speaking with the ruling to force competing payment solutions to be displayed next to apples IAP solution.

Apple would still essentially use different word for the same thing. And it would be judged anti competitive. Apple already made the mistake to agree to competing payment solutions with a 27% cut, demonstrating an incentive to prevent developers from using other methods. Any argument apple brings can’t incentivize developers from not using competing solutions.

Revenue split= anti competitive to other payment solutions

Royalties on revenue outside the store = anti competitive to other payment solutions

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Revenue split= anti competitive to other payment solutions

Royalties on revenue outside the store = anti competitive to other payment solutions

It’s not about payment solutions!
Apple’s commission is about profiting from the platform they built, iOS. What they have revealed now is that 3% of that cut is for payment processing- competitive with other offerings. 27% is not. If they have to offer alternative stores, they will subtract the cost of operating the App Store from the 27%.

Apple intends to profit from iOS, and those who develop for it using Apple’s infrastructure. Regulators may ban Apple from mandating that devs use Apple’s infrastructure (such as IAP or the App Store) but Apple will still enact a charge for whatever services it is allowed to provide. Regulators will have to fight Apple over each individual part of the 30%, and demand Apple allow alternatives for each bit. And if there is no good alternative (such as Xcode, notarization, etc.) then they will need to justify why Apple, singled out from all other companies, is not allowed to profit from the platform it built.

 

[Maximara]

In EU it fell on the fact shrink wrap licensing is not legal in Germany in anyway. Meaning the business had not agreed to any contract and was the legal owner of their copy. They could install it on a Pc, modify it and sell it.

Essentially they could just purchase a bunch of CDs and install them and ignore the agreement as it was displayed after purchase. And EUCD can’t prevent reselling or modification of something that you bought and with no contract.

Apple did not win against Psystar. on EULA shrink wrap but on copyright violations ie "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures." The EUCD also has anti-circumvention provisions just as the DMCA does though clearly there are differences.

Though as Don’t build a Hackintosh (Jan 3, 2021) and Hackintosh in 2022 - Does It Make Any Sense show the win is moot - unless you are some sort of masochistic geek it make no sense to build a hackintosh. You're not saving any money (which when you get right down to it was the whole reason) and adding a whole other set of issues to your place.

I would like to mention that in the US there is a first sell doctrine as well and yet shrink wrap licensing has all these things about not being able to be transfered:

"Epic grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable limited right and license to use the Software and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (the “License”)."

When "Ten states and the District of Columbia legally require businesses to meticulously detail the used gaming habits of their customers and share that information with police." you will realized just how messed in some respects the land of the "free" can be.

And if you think that is bad the idea from old days about having an access code that could only be used a limited number of times (anti-piracy) can easily be applied to digital games (and in a handful of cases has been).

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The closest analog that comes to my mind is cable TV - Apple is the provider of access but doesn't actually make the individual channel (App) content. It's not a perfect analog but is is similar in many ways.

Cable as a broadcaster as no IP rights over the channels or programs it broadcasts. You may be thinking about t broadcasting rights.

But here is the thing … broadcasting is not retail. “Groceries” and “tutoring lessons” are not TV programs.

Some code in the Netflix and Facebook iOS apps are undoubtedly apple ip.

Some components in the code may be … like some components of the iPhone are Qualcomms, LGs … IPs. I see no problem with that do you?

But Qualcomm is not the lP owner of the iPhone for instance. The same for third party Apps, they own no IP.

Hey but if you would like a world where that would be the case, you would need to include yourself as Apple IP first.

 

[draugminaion]

Much of the outrage is astroturfed by billion dollar companies like Epic and Tinder.
They do this because they are inconvenienced by Apple’s business model.
They see lots of their money go to Apple and they get nothing in return.
Their money is used to subsidize free apps, some of which are their competitors.
Their money is used to do payment processing, a bit of promotion, and customer relations, they could do these things themselves cheaper and better.
Their money is used to make safety and privacy features that just get in their way.
Their money is used to make APIs specially for Apple’s hardware that they don’t need because they have their own software that is cross platform.

Part of the fabricated outrage is repeating the 30% number, which is actually 15% or 0% for almost every developer.
It’s only 30% for billion dollar companies that, like Apple, make filthy amounts of money.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Revenue split= anti competitive to other payment solutions

Royalties on revenue outside the store = anti competitive to other payment solutions

+ Prohibiting developers from including code to make outside transactions: Anti-competitive as well

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple did not win against Psystar. on EULA shrink wrap but on copyright violations ie "Defendant has illegally circumvented Apple's technological copyright-protection measures." The EUCD also has anti-circumvention provisions just as the DMCA does though clearly there are differences.

It’s quite insane how different it can be with USA and EU. Apple lost on all accounts because they legitimately purchased every copy they sold

Though as Don’t build a Hackintosh (Jan 3, 2021) and Hackintosh in 2022 - Does It Make Any Sense show the win is moot - unless you are some sort of masochistic geek it make no sense to build a hackintosh. You're not saving any money (which when you get right down to it was the whole reason) and adding a whole other set of issues to your place.

Well it was more of a legal win for contract laws and software than anything else today.

I would like to mention that in the US there is a first sell doctrine as well and yet shrink wrap licensing has all these things about not being able to be transfered:

"Epic grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable limited right and license to use the Software and Services for your personal, non-commercial use (the “License”)."

Kind of messed up how it’s even legal to do

When "Ten states and the District of Columbia legally require businesses to meticulously detail the used gaming habits of their customers and share that information with police." you will realized just how messed in some respects the land of the "free" can be.

And if you think that is bad the idea from old days about having an access code that could only be used a limited number of times (anti-piracy) can easily be applied to digital games (and in a handful of cases has been).

Oh I’m well aware how messed up it is in the land of the “free”

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Develoers: This is all about alternate payment systems. We should be able to use those if we want, even when selling via the App Store!

Apple: OK. But we're still going to charge you.

Developers: TOO MUCH!!!

If developers stance is as you state I think it’s ridiculous. In those cases the solution is to start focusing enriching platforms that actually they believe that give them fairer conditions.

People will migrate in tandem as no one needs a smartphone without the support of the digital services of choice.

Better do it sooner than later … as time goes by their position will get weaker and weaker under this model.

But I don’t think that is actually their stance. What I believe is happening is that that creating walls between them and the market towards unchecked passive income schemes devoid their IP of value and ultimately business and innovation in geopardy. The Internet was suppose to be the device that removed these walls … here we go again …

A poster here actually said … for the vast majority of developers / businesses are taxed at15%, meaning businesses under a million. Well any business man know that a businesses under a million revenue is not really a business … it’s a flake.

So we are creating this economy where we have millions of melting flakes under a million and Big Tech extracting billions by policy over properties that aren’t even theirs because they supply some kinds of digital devices. Eventually this tiny businesses will disappear has they get Sherlocked by Big Tech with a touch of a button. In the west of course … because you go to Asia the Big Tech curves to their regulations … and we see production booming sustaining incredibly strong economies and with it geo power.

Stocks are up, but we are in the middle of a long term recession every where. So much so we make more money betting that thing will go bust rather than it will grow … for decades.

While governments print money, trillions, if not tax benefits to get rich assets up (IPs and Stocks) , passive income, is doing cuts on supporting productions units, case in case welfare.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm curious what the nuclear option is? As I said, alternative stores are not a nuclear option. Apple will still get a commission.

Probably the EU Digital Markets Act.
Note how it does not require covered operators to be a "monopoly":

"The Digital Markets Act (DMA) establishes a set of narrowly defined objective criteria for qualifying a large online platform as a so-called “gatekeeper”. This allows the DMA to remain well targeted to the problem that it aims to tackle as regards large, systemic online platforms.

These criteria will be met if a company:
- has a strong economic position, significant impact on the internal market and is active in multiple EU countries
- has a strong intermediation position, meaning that it links a large user base to a large number of businesses
- has (or is about to have) an entrenched and durable position in the market, meaning that it is stable over time"

Note how they're not requiring a "monopoly" but only a "strong" economic and intermediary position (which Apple undoubtedly has).

- Innovators and technology start-ups will have new opportunities to compete and innovate in the online platform environment without having to comply with unfair terms and conditions limiting their development.
- Consumers will have more and better services to choose from, more opportunities to switch their provider if they wish so, direct access to services, and fairer prices.
- Gatekeepers will keep all opportunities to innovate and offer new services. They will simply not be allowed to use unfair practices towards the business users and customers that depend on them to gain an undue advantage.

I have little doubt that a 27% percent commission on "aftermarket" sales Apple aren't even handling themselves will be deemed "unfair"

"Gatekeeper platforms will have to:
- allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations
- allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform"

"What will be the consequences of non-compliance?
- Fines of up to 10% of the company’s total worldwide annual turnover
- Periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of the average daily turnover"

Going to the actual proposal of the act:

"A gatekeeper shall
- allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
- allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;
(...)
- allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper."

And yes, it also has an anti-circumvention clause in place.

they will need to justify why Apple, singled out from all other companies, is not allowed to profit from the platform it built.

The act does just that - provide legal criteria to single them (and a few others) out. It doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to benefit from their platform though - they're just not allowed to "monopolise" it for digital transactions.

but Apple will still enact a charge for whatever services it is allowed to provide.

With sideloading allowed, they basically have to do so through charging for developer tools and signing.

I'm not sure how the act play applies to the charging of fees or commissions, a commission on turnover from third-party, let alone a 27% one just isn't going to fly with lawmakers and regulators. While the EU may not be very democratic and its acts not free of loopholes, it certainly doesn't pass acts and regulations only for them to be circumvented and rendered moot by big foreign corporations.