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

[Sophisticatednut]

You have the same thing in EUCD with regards to changing computer programs.

"Exclusive rights of the rights-holder

The holder of the rights to a computer program may do, or may authorise others to do, the following:

• the permanent or temporary reproduction of the program, or a part thereof;
• the translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration of the program;
• the distribution of the programme:"

Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC)
Copyright protection under this Directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible article. The first sale in the Community of the original of a work or copies thereof by the rightholder or with his consent exhausts the right to control resale of that object in the Community. This right should not be exhausted in respect of the original or of copies thereof sold by the rightholder or with his consent outside the Community.
Article 4

Distribution right

1. Member States shall provide for authors, in respect of the original of their works or of copies thereof, the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise.

2. The distribution right shall not be exhausted within the Community in respect of the original or copies of the work, except where the first sale or other transfer of ownership in the Community of that object is made by the rightholder or with his consent.
EUCJ ruling 2021
The concept of ‘sale of goods’ referred to in Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to
self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that it can cover the
supply, in return for payment of a fee, of computer software to a customer by electronic
means where that supply is accompanied by the grant of a perpetual licence to use that
software.

8 ECLI:EU:C:2012:407
JUDGMENT OF 3. 7. 2012 — CASE C-128/11
USEDSOFT
42 According to a commonly accepted definition, a ‘sale’ is an agreement by which a person, in return for
payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible
property belonging to him. It follows that the commercial transaction giving rise, in accordance with
Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, to exhaustion of the right of distribution of a copy of a computer
program must involve a transfer of the right of ownership in that cop

and

"Special measures of protection
[...]

• putting into circulation or owning, for commercial purposes, any means whose sole purpose is to allow the unauthorised removal or bypassing of any technical protection device.

Computer programs — legal protection | EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

Case C‑13/20,Operative part of the judgment​

Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the lawful purchaser of a computer program is entitled to decompile all or part of that program in order to correct errors affecting its operation, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which that program forms a part

It's just that a developer has no way to get any of their apps into the App Store or onto an iOS device without using Apple's IP. That's why Apple are in a position to demand money.

Wrong. In Europe, the Software Directive (2009/24/EC) states that ideas and principles underlying any element of a computer program, including those underlying its interfaces, are not protected by copyright
On those grounds,
the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
1. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of
computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a
computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a
computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of
expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer
programs for the purposes of that directive.
2. Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has
obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the
authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that
program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the
program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of
loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that
that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that
program.

I thought the justification on the fee was to pay for the maintenance and further development of the IAP system. What’s Apples argument that these revenue streams are different from apps that get revenue from third party ads? Genuinely curious here , isn’t their an argument by doing this that Apple is targeting one type of revenue and not another? What makes Apple entitled to this and not the other?

Apple only describe a commission of sale, and nothing outside as the act of the sale.

 

[draugminaion]

So, the ACM is taking a look at Apple's plan to still charge 27% and they don't yet know if this is OK.

"A spokesperson for the ACM said the agency could not comment beyond its public statements on whether a 27% commission would be consistent with its order."

Dutch watchdog fines Apple $5.7 million again in App Store dispute

The Dutch antitrust watchdog on Monday fined apple Apple 5 million euros ($5.72 million) for a third time for failing to allow software application makers in the Netherlands to use non-Apple payment methods for dating apps listed in the company's App Store.

www.reuters.com

Meanwhile it seems that Apple is not paying the fines because another judge has postponed that obligation until 6 weeks after the ACM has addressed Apple's objections to the decision.

Last onder dwangsom Apple gedeeltelijk geschorst

Rotterdam, 24 december 2021

www.rechtspraak.nl

 

[Ethosik]

People have to understand. The 30% is not for payment processing. It is for the developer tools like Xcode, instruments, iOS API's, free training videos for developers, App Store maintenance and so on. In contrast, Microsoft's developer tools costs over $1000 per developer, per year. Apple gives these for free, but collects money only on app sales made. This is the business model that has led to the App revolution that we are living in.

Yep. I pay a hefty fine for Visual Studio.

 

[Ethosik]

Microsoft has free tools too, they are perfectly adequate for many developers.
Those that pay $1000 are those that make serious money.

Like Epic on the App Store.
Only Apple's method of collecting the money is different.

And if nobody paid for Visual Studio it would cease to exist. That is why Microsoft puts strict restrictions on the community edition because if everyone used it, Microsoft VS developers would not get paid. Therefore, I’m helping provide the community edition by paying those large fees.

 

[djphat2000]

Yes. And all of them are regulated. All except walking are also regulated on pricing and access.

Doesn't answer my question/point on this particular situation. How can we state that Apple has to allow a 3rd party payment and or store on their platform? It is similar to having a 3rd party register in a Best Buy or Target. Or paying via Uber when getting into a Taxi. I'm not seeing anyone trying to push those options on any other store.

You were the one claiming a business should „stand on its own“, or it would be a bad one.
Reality is: many important businesses are depending on someone else.

A business "should" be able to stand on its own. Meaning, don't have 1 other vendor you NEED to survive. If all you're doing is making an app and you can't figure out how much to charge to make money and at the same time pay for the services on the store. Maybe you shouldn't be doing this? Or you're doing it wrong?

I‘d argue it did. They just didn’t have the developer tools ready at launch. And yes, maybe Steve wasn‘t 100% convinced. Everything else was just largely their PR spin on it.

Stop. Please. No phone had this, and the option provided was WEBAPP. The same option Microsoft uses TODAY for the XBOX streaming. IF that was what they planned, it would have been stated as such with developers lined up for launch. Apple has had plenty of times when they tell you something is coming "soon" in the next update or whatever. They would have mentioned the WebApp way for now, and coming soon! A full digital store for all your apps. Blah blah blah.

Yeah, so? Apple won‘t. But even assuming they did, we‘d use Android.
It‘d mostly hurt Apple more than anything else.

Yes, many would use Android. And the world can then go bash them for not letting devs on the store live rent free. I'm for it. I'll stick with my iPhone for as long as possible. 90% of the apps I use work via a webpage as well. I have an Xbox, and Microsoft is buying up all the gaming devs I care about so, my issues are solved on that end. The other 10% are Apple's own apps, so those will continue to work for as long as they can survive.

While that could be yours, the reality is that Apple is a profit-oriented listed company that will put profits over „sticking it to them“ as a matter of principle.

Agreed. But, I think they will have to weigh it against their principles. Apple isn't shy about losing value when it comes to doing what they feel is right for the long term. So, Should we A - Comply with all these new rules that will make it incredibly difficult for us to create the products and services we as a company want. Or Should we B - remove ourselves from this equation. Let the developers complain that web-apps are too hard to make, and that Google charges too much. Meanwhile announce they are making a Car and a VR/augmented headset. Take the financial hit on the AppStore while getting valued up another Trillion on the rest.

They company’s not run by armchair jocks such as me and you
Agreed. And thankfully so. I would have told them all to go F themselves long ago.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Sigh. You are not getting it. If "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." is correct than the issue was DMCA/EUCD copyright protection not Apple's EULA.

No, the problem is a consumer are legally allowed to modify their property and later sell it and not break any copyright as they are modifying a copy of their property and not apples IP.

In EU copyright of software and hardware are the same thing.

"(13) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author." - Directive 2009/24/EC

This is the law that existed in the EU when Psystar and HyperMegaNet were doing their thing (assuming they were two different companies which I am not sure of)

As you might notice this only covers if you make a copy and isn’t related to first sale directive modifying OS X is the equivalent of modifying a Ford by installing BMW engine and later sell it

Heck, even Apple's EULA of the time stated: "Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open Sourced Components, or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."

This sentence literally have no legal meaning. Especially when the EULA doesn’t matter and makes the whole contract void

Providing the means to put MacOS on other hardware is borderline thanks to other aspects of the DMCA which don't apply now but modifying MacOS and then selling it on was illegal even by EU law of the time. That was my point. That is without touching on the shady things that may have been going on with Psystar (and if Macworld was right HyperMegaNet as well)

Modifying software to make it run is not illegal, selling it is under their IP is

But Germany had this quirk making it legal for a business as well

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Doesn't answer my question/point on this particular situation. How can we state that Apple has to allow a 3rd party payment and or store on their platform? It is similar to having a 3rd party register in a Best Buy or Target. Or paying via Uber when getting into a Taxi. I'm not seeing anyone trying to push those options on any other store.

because no kid pushing this argument. It’s a straw man and gross miss-understanding.
If you go in to target and purchase a good, on no planet on earth can target force the supplier to continue to use their store register after the customer left the building The goods can contain a link or QR code to purchase extra pillows on the supplier website as long as it’s not inside targets 4 walls

 

[AppliedMicro]

If you go in to target and purchase a good, on no planet on earth can target force the supplier to continue to use their store register after the customer left the building The goods can contain a link or QR code to purchase extra pillows on the supplier website as long as it’s not inside targets 4 walls

Target can force them to use their own cash registers.
They can also prohibit suppliers the links to their own websites.

...if their contractual relationship with the manufacturer says so.
And they do have exclusivity deals on toys, for example.

But yeah... what are the market shares of the two biggest app stores vs. the market shares of the two biggest toy retailers?

 

[AppliedMicro]

How can we state that Apple has to allow a 3rd party payment and or store on their platform? It is similar to having a 3rd party register in a Best Buy or Target. Or paying via Uber when getting into a Taxi.

Taxi companies don't nearly have the nationwide, even worldwide market power that Google Play and Apple's App Store have. It's simple as that. And transportation is heavily regulated, while App Stores aren't much regulated in their business practices (yet).

For clarity's sake: If there were only two profit-oriented, exchange-listed taxi or transportation companies that divided 95% of the nationwide market between them, I'd advocate for strong regulation as well, breaking their duopoly.

Point being:
Google Play Store and Apple App Store and their market power aren't comparable to taxis.
Neither is the market concentration in retail stores the same and do Walmart and Target come close to a duopoly.

All kinds of comparisons have been drawn in this thread to other industries and economic sectors.
And yes, I agree, that many of them seem quite sound and reasonable on "technical" grounds.

? What many people conveniently ignore in their comparisons are the market concentrations.

But market concentration and monopoly/oligopoly on a nationwide or worldwide level power are the best - and maybe the only good - reasons why these App Store operators should be regulated, sideloading allowed or open access to mobile OS platforms be mandated.

It is similar to having a 3rd party register in a Best Buy or Target

Best Buy has a market share of less than 10% for consumer electronics in the U.S.

Meaning, don't have 1 other vendor you NEED to survive

Lots of businesses have that.

Boeing and Airbus have key suppliers without which they'd be toast.
So probably do some automotive companies.
Local indoor pool operators depend on the local water company.
What do you think is going to happen to Lenovo, HP or Dell once Microsoft doesn't supply them with operating system licenses anymore and prevents Windows running on their laptops?

No phone had this

Not sure if I understand you correctly there - but of course paid apps were a thing before the iPhone (though not very successful).

the option provided was WEBAPP

Whatever it was: The announced their dev SDK within months of announced the iPhone.

As 9to5mac put it: The web app "news fell on de(a)f ears". Either they'd been planning it along, or they caved in to public pressure. Whatever, I'm sure they had some people internally that were considering and advocating opening the platform for third-party native apps long before the iPhone launch.

I also we can stop the nonsense discussion (and I don't mean necessarily you there) about how "if you don't like Apple's terms, you can do web apps" is presented as a viable choice.

 

[djphat2000]

What you say is wrong in my opinion because the yearly fee developers pay is meant to be for EVERYTHING, the API's, hosting the app, to run the store. The 30% which was reduced to 15% in some cases was comission for use of apples pay system (according to apple). So, if the 3% has now been identified as the actual cost for using apples pay system then what is the 27% if everything else is already paid for by the yearly fee? You can't say it's for running the store because that's what the yearly fee pays for, you can't say it's for using API's or development of API's because again that's what the yearly fee is for, you can't say it's for processing or signing or development tools because that's what the yearly fee is for.

What this shows is that Apple grab this 30% out of thin air and now they have exposed themselves scamming everyone by identifying that actually 3% is what is needed to pay for using apples pay system and the 27% they got out of thin air because if it is a charge for running the store or for developement of API's or something else then Apple should have identified it in the terms and conditions the app store or put it onto of the yearly fee. The fact they did none of that shows they picked that figure out of thin air and scammed everyone.

Remember, and this is extremely important. Apple stated that the 30% commision on in-app purchases was to pay for using apples pay system. Now, with what Apple has exposed with the dutch dating app's is that actually only 3% goes to paying for apples payment system. If that is the case they where has the extra 27% come from because Apple said it was to pay for using their payment system but they have exposed themselves by showing only 3% of that 30% goes to paying for use of apples payment system. Apple have exposed themselves for being scammers by charging 27% extra for nothing, basically getting people to pay 27% for nothing as it only costs 3% to use apples payment system.

Apple need to explain away the 27% quickly because if they do not I expect lawyers from various quarters will be banging on their doors wanting an explanation.

Commission. They are allowed to make money. That didn't go away. They still host the app, and advertise for the app, and all that comes with doing so. They are allowed to make a profit, it is a business after all. They are expected to pay taxes in the country they make money in too so, yeah. It all makes perfect sense to me.

 

[djphat2000]

Taxi companies don't nearly have the nationwide, even worldwide market power that Google Play and Apple's App Store have. It's simple as that. And transportation is heavily regulated, while App Stores aren't much regulated in their business practices (yet).

So the only solution we have is to force Apple to do something they didn't design their software to do? They abused nothing to merit that. Why would any business want to be so successful if they will be punished for being successful?

For clarity's sake: If there were only two profit-oriented, exchange-listed taxi or transportation companies that divided 95% of the nationwide market between them, I'd advocate for strong regulation as well, breaking their duopoly.

What is to prevent Uber or Lyft from getting to that level? By the example above, they "could" and be forced to allow something within their business to exist that didn't prior, until they reached that special level. It would behove them to stay in the low teens of % in market share. which is not how capitalism works in a free society but whatever.

Point being:
Google Play Store and Apple App Store and their market power aren't comparable to taxis.

Was comparing payment for services between the two. IE, pay for your taxi ride with Uber. Or pay for your Mop-n-Glow at Target via a 3rd party register.

Neither is the market concentration in retail stores the same and do Walmart and Target come close to a duopoly.

Best Buy, Target, Walmart for almost everything you need to buy. Same for Home Depot and Lowes.
They all take a cut from everything they sell that comes from other manufactures. While selling their own branded products for less...

All kinds of comparisons have been drawn in this thread to other industries and economic sectors.
And yes, I agree, that many of them seem quite sound and reasonable on "technical" grounds.

? What many people conveniently ignore in their comparisons are the market concentrations.

It seems at least in the US, this shouldn't be an issue. Market concentration without doing anything illegal should be "fine" so long as you don't abuse any of that power to obtain it or maintain it. 30% has been the norm since jump, when they had no market share to speak of. It hasn't gone up has it? It's gone down over time. Heck its FREE outside of a yearly $100 fee to get the apps and put something on the store. And fully bypassable via a WebApp.

But market concentration and monopoly/oligopoly on a nationwide or worldwide level power are the best - and maybe the only good - reasons why these App Store operators should be regulated, sideloading allowed or open access to mobile OS platforms be mandated.

Sideloading is not regulating. Making a closed or walled system "open" is not regulating. Apple has a right to make the product they wish to sell. The market decides if it succeeds or not. If they have not created something illegal, there is no reason to regulate them past what already exists. They have broken no laws. They didn't raise prices, they didn't do any bait and switch on anyone all this time. We are making up reasons to do this. And not thinking through this at all. What they ask for sounds simple and easy enough to do. It's not, and what it really would require is a new OS. Built with this in mind, which at present it isn't. I would not want any part of it on my device at all. Right now, there are walls up, no door no key, no windows (pun intended). They want to make a door with a lock and a window with a lock and hope it all works out as they "think" it will or should. It doesn't work that way.

Best Buy has a market share of less than 10% for consumer electronics in the U.S.

Again, I say watch out Best Buy. Maybe call themselves Not so BestBuy. to be safe.

What do you think is going to happen to Lenovo, HP or Dell once Microsoft doesn't supply them with operating system licenses anymore and prevents Windows running on their laptops?

They would switch to Linux distro or to stay in business by just selling the computer without an OS. They could put Android on it. They could make their own OS.

Not sure if I understand you correctly there - but of course paid apps were a thing before the iPhone (though not very successful).

So Apple does it successfully and here we are...

Whatever it was: The announced their dev SDK within months of announced the iPhone.

As 9to5mac put it: The web app "news fell on de(a)f ears". Either they'd been planning it along, or they caved in to public pressure. Whatever, I'm sure they had some people internally that were considering and advocating opening the platform for third-party native apps long before the iPhone launch.

Fine, but again that is what they offered. And again, can't make Dev's do what they don't want to do. but, they can seeming enough make Apple do what they want them to do.. I call this not fair.

I also we can stop the nonsense discussion (and I don't mean necessarily you there) about how "if you don't like Apple's terms, you can do web apps" is presented as a viable choice.

It is a viable choice. Especially when Microsoft proved you can game via web app, you already could socialize on the web. No need for a full app there either. Banking, or pretty much any finance, all web-able.
Is it as good as an app. Not always, but it certainly good enough for them to stop complaining about no other option. It is a very good option, especially now. Maybe no back then. They didn't have the same level of compute, or battery, or as nice a screen, etc. No excuse why I have to have a Spotify App when the web works fine, it's audio and video. Same for Netflix, or Tinder, or gaming. They all can work if some good effort was done to do so. And think, they could bypass the 30% in totality. It has to be worth it for all this bickering. Otherwise it's not worth it, and it's worth the 30% they pay to have the app.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Target can force them to use their own cash registers.
They can also prohibit suppliers the links to their own websites.

...if their contractual relationship with the manufacturer says so.
And they do have exclusivity deals on toys, for example.

But yeah... what are the market shares of the two biggest app stores vs. the market shares of the two biggest toy retailers?

No, they can't force a purchase that happens outside the store to be registered inside target.
What target can do is license an exclusive right to provide a sale of the goods, but then they must be sold in Target's physical locations/website and nowhere else.

What apple is doing is effectively this.
Buy an iPhone at target. And every time you want to purchase anything for your iPhone, you are forced to do two things.
1: hide it from apple as you purchase something.
2: be denied service and told to return to target the moment they identify it was purchased from target and refusing to communicate any information about a purchase outside of being directed to a target cashier to complete the sale

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So the only solution we have is to force Apple to do something they didn't design their software to do? They abused nothing to merit that. Why would any business want to be so successful if they will be punished for being successful?

Simple, no business can tell you how you are allowed to change the lightbulb or install decoration in your car.

What is to prevent Uber or Lyft from getting to that level? By the example above, they "could" and be forced to allow something within their business to exist that didn't prior, until they reached that special level. It would behove them to stay in the low teens of % in market share. which is not how capitalism works in a free society but whatever.

Easy. 100% of regulators haven't tried or argued for apple to allow anything inside their business.
Just as nobody argues to force BMW to sell things inside their store. because BMW can't mandate how your car is allowed to be used

Was comparing payment for services between the two. IE, pay for your taxi ride with Uber. Or pay for your Mop-n-Glow at Target via a 3rd party register.

this doesn't make since. you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument

Best Buy, Target, Walmart for almost everything you need to buy. Same for Home Depot and Lowes.
They all take a cut from everything they sell that comes from other manufactures. While selling their own branded products for less...

only inside their store.
iOS In app purchases are done... In side another companies app, and not inside tje appstore.

Sideloading is not regulating. Making a closed or walled system "open" is not regulating. Apple has a right to make the product they wish to sell. The market decides if it succeeds or not. If they have not created something illegal, there is no reason to regulate them past what already exists. They have broken no laws. They didn't raise prices, they didn't do any bait and switch on anyone all this time. We are making up reasons to do this. And not thinking through this at all. What they ask for sounds simple and easy enough to do. It's not, and what it really would require is a new OS.

Not at all. It would simply be a reinforcement of ownership of your own property. Or do you accept a company should be allowed to prevent you from purchasing new cartwheels from competing wheel makers?

Built with this in mind, which at present it isn't. I would not want any part of it on my device at all. Right now, there are walls up, no door no key, no windows (pun intended). They want to make a door with a lock and a window with a lock and hope it all works out as they "think" it will or should. It doesn't work that way.

the door already exist. Only difference is apple limiting it to 7 days before any alternative app must be installed or pay 100$/year before it must be reinstalled

Fine, but again that is what they offered. And again, can't make Dev's do what they don't want to do. but, they can seeming enough make Apple do what they want them to do.. I call this not fair.

apple actively prevented it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

“Once a copyright owner consents to the sale of particular copies of a work, the owner may not thereafter exercise distribution rights with respect to those copies. See, e.g., Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350-51 (1908) (recognizing more than 100 years ago the concept of first sale and the limitations imposed upon a copyright owner in light thereof). Psystar acquired lawful copies of the Mac OS from Apple; those copies were lawfully acquired from authorized distributors including some directly from Apple; Psystar paid good and valuable consideration for those copies; Psystar disposed of those lawfully acquired copies to third-parties.” - Psystar Tells Court, “We bought the software!”

open shut case. In germany private property is yours to with as you wish and resell as modified as yo uwish

"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X.

Not a thing in germany or EU

It did this by replacing original files in Mac OS X with unauthorized software files.

A company cant prohibit a consumer from replacing a part of the property with custom or third party goods

Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers;

you can only have an unauthorizedcopy if you sell a copy and keep your originally purchased copy

(2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions. These modifications enabled Mac OS X to run on a non-Apple computer. It is undisputed that Psystar made these modifications." - Ruling for Apple against Psystar means clone-makers have no legal recourse

these things arent illegal in EU as long as it's done in your own lawfully purchased property

Psystar lost on First Sale doctrine because it violated the DMCA in altering those copies something that is required to make a hackintosh work. This is why I say DMCA and EUCD must be substantially different.

Yep DMCA talks specifically about software
EUCD is about copyright over goods. and 100% of goods sold have a copyright license provided at time of sale. and 100% of software is clasefied as goods.
only a service is excluded

 

[AppliedMicro]

So the only solution we have is to force Apple to do something they didn't design their software to do?

The software can easily run

What is to prevent Uber or Lyft from getting to that level?

What do I know? They might.
It‘s irrelevant for the time being.

It seems at least in the US, this shouldn't be an issue. Market concentration without doing anything illegal should be "fine" so long as you don't abuse any of that power to obtain it or maintain it

Whether or not it‘s illegal (abuse of market power) is being decided in the court system.
Or by laws - could be new ones at that.

Best Buy, Target, Walmart for almost everything you need to buy. Same for Home Depot and Lowes.
They all take a cut from everything they sell that comes from other manufactures. While selling their own branded products for less...

I‘m not disputing that at all. It‘s getting really tiresome.
Best Buy and Target, not even Walmart have the same market power towards suppliers as Apple and Google do. That‘s why Apple and Google should (maybe) treated differently.

Sideloading is not regulating. Making a closed or walled system "open" is not regulating.

Mandating operators to offer it is regulation.

What they ask for sounds simple and easy enough to do. It's not, and what it really would require is a new OS.

It doesn‘t. „Sideloading“ works today on macOS. It only requires a very small modification of iOS: namely the ability to disable signature checks on certain apps. That‘s it. Not a new OS. macOS didn‘t become „a new OS“ when they added the app signing checks recently either. Sandboxing is there today as well.

Literally none of those „it would require a totally new OS cause the current one isn’t designed for that“ is based in reality, sorry. It would only require very small modifications.

It is a viable choice. Especially when Microsoft proved you can game via web app, you already could socialize on the web. No need for a full app there either.

Congratulations. You cherry-picked the one use case that is based on online video streaming (and thus requires high-bandwith internet connection) more than anything else to begin with - and found that it could work as a web app.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS: side note: availability of high profile, high quality web apps would actually increase (cross-) platform mobility and decrease dependence of users on the dominating App Stores and mobile OS. That would actually increase the chances of competing operating systems gaining a foothold in the marketplace.

Something that‘s certainly against Apple‘s interests (vendor lock-in).
And one of the reasons why their platform. along with Android has become so dominant.

 

[djphat2000]

because no kid pushing this argument. It’s a straw man and gross miss-understanding.

It is not

If you go in to target and purchase a good, on no planet on earth can target force the supplier to continue to use their store register after the customer left the building

That isn't what's happening here. In-App-Purchase via the AppStore, payments go to where the purchase was made. If you go online to the developers website, you can also purchase DLP or IAP directly too. If your app/game has an account that is tied to you, it should show up in your game. It's just not advertised in the store (AppStore) that you can do that, like it wouldn't be in any other store. Physical or otherwise.

People seem to hang on to the unfairness of IAP via the AppStore, when that is where you are buying from.
If you want to pay for it directly, go directly to the vendors website to do so. Leave the game, or App and open a webpage on the phone and go to the store and blah blah blah blah. It's one way, not the only way.
People don't want to do that (obvously), but that is precisely why Apple and or Google should be PAID for that convenice. They don't have to provide any way at all to do any of this.

 

[djphat2000]

The software can easily run

They have stated otherwise. It was not a part of its design.

What do I know? They might.
It‘s irrelevant for the time being.

It's not. If this is the precedent we are trying to set. It very well means that any company becoming too successful in any market should look out. Don't get to big, they will come for you. Which goes counter to the whole way capitalism and free markets work in a free society. Why innovate/research & develop or waste time making something potentially great when the government will change the rules to limit your ability. Even if you didn't do anything wrong.

Whether or not it‘s illegal (abuse of market power) is being decided in the court system.
Or by laws - could be new ones at that.

It is NOT illegal if you have to make laws to then make it illegal. First we either are or are not. They followed the rules as they have been. Broke no law. People just have new options, thoughts, feelings about it. Which is fine, but changing the rules to force any company to enable, or create something that did not exist prior and can jeopardize the security of the device/OS is VERY unfair.

I‘m not disputing that at all. It‘s getting really tiresome.
Best Buy and Target, not even Walmart have the same market power towards suppliers as Apple and Google do. That‘s why Apple and Google should (maybe) treated differently.

This again I disagree, as it is unfair. Treat them the same, same rules apply. Consoles, stores either physical or digital, mobile phones treat them the same.

Mandating operators to offer it is regulation.

It doesn‘t. „Sideloading“ works today on macOS. It only requires a very small modification of iOS: namely the ability to disable signature checks on certain apps. That‘s it. Not a new OS. macOS didn‘t become „a new OS“ when they added the app signing checks recently either. Sandboxing is there today as well.

Thanks for opening up my perfectly working OS. I'm sure you and every other hacker on the planet will not try and ruin the experience for all of us that don't want this. If I did, I'd buy an Android phone and most likely would not be posting on this site.

Literally none of those „it would require a totally new OS cause the current one isn’t designed for that“ is based in reality, sorry. It would only require very small modifications.

Very small modifications that puts the device in a VERY different situation that it was not prior. So now Apple has to secure that in ways it did not have to before AND keep it safe for every single OS update. And if the gov't have their way. They will also have to ensure the safety as it is today at least with 3rd party appstores and apps. So any update to the OS can't just go breaking those 3rd party apps, cause the lawsuits will come if they do.

Again, MacOS and iOS are not the same. No matter how you or anyone wish to simplify it. They are different for different use cases, built for the hardware and software for which they are able to run. And run well enough to sell as as solid finished product.

Congratulations. You cherry-picked the one use case that is based on online video streaming (and thus requires high-bandwith internet connection) more than anything else to begin with - and found that it could work as a web app.

I'll say it again. Xbox Game Streaming works via a WebAPP.

 

[theotherphil]

Hi. I’ll try to share my point of view and why your answer although it looks realistic and reasonable is fundamentally flawed.

I’ve been programming since I was 10 years, in the 80’s. Back than there was a machine called ZX Spectrum, amongst many others such as Commodore, Atari, Mackintosh, IBM PC … Anyway, on ZX Spectrum there were also interpreted languages such as Basic and Pascal that developers could use to build non native execution programs. Yet, I would at instances also program in Assembly (native execution) … because it was several others of magnitude faster in execution …

The above technical truth has not changed in time. There are advantages (adds functional value) in developing non native software programs and native programs (adds functional value). These advantages aren’t Apples invention, its a fact of nature of digital technology.

Are you arguing that Apple is aiming charging for the fundamental nature of technology? Don’t think so. I think the Apple aims to monetise the fact that its the sole distributor of software programs (third party things and IP) to 50% of Americans using smartphones (iPhone market share is more or less 50% in the US). It seams be planning doing it not only on mobile devices but also PCs (iMac) and everything else that might come in the future.

So the actual problem is that whoever controls even a bit of the distribution of software programs regardless of genre actually controls the digital economy. Software programs are fundamental to the digital economy, like eyes are to people. Without these digital businesses are blind.

There are indeed similarities even if sometimes thin between the App Store business model and Gaming Consoles. Heck, in general there are similarities between any kind of business, but that is besides my point. The fundamental mental difference between Gaming Consoles Stores and the App Store is that the App Store has no boundaries of any kind all. Meaning it can affect games as well groceries or banking.

The irony of your example is that Facebook App actually pays nothing even though it uses exactly the same has any other payed digital service through the In-Payment-Billing device. If not more, because I would not be surprised if Apple does not have special server farms reserved for those given the load.

Wait there is more. We know very well the Facebook business model, its sells Ads on top of knowledge it gathers analysing personal data and interactions, … heck it seams that it sold personal data at points to third parties. Now imagine that you invent a social ecosystem where its users are actually willing to pay, say 99c per month, getting rid of all these pesky practices … no Ads. Not only you have a huge challenge to compete against an established Facebook, yes the App Store will not help you with that in anyway, but also need to share the a spetacular 30% revenue with Apple when in your App. This is a perfect example where this practice devalues entrepreneurship, your invention, your efforts in favor of these practices. Shouldn’t at least both be paying for the distribution of their software programs?

Ask Apple why isn’t Facebook paying anything. Than come back and talk about privacy rights, security and so on. It’s very simple. With this, Apple is indeed recognizing that digital services do provide substancial contributions to the use of their technology, in turn to iPhone sales, to their bottom line. Intangible contributions.

Cheers.

All that waffle and you didn’t answer my question. Why does Facebook <or insert app of your choice> choose to be in the App Store when it’s core functionality works fine in a browser? The FaceBook app is essentially a wrapper for the website. I only access facebook from a browser on iPhone or iPad and it works perfectly, same with Twitter and Netflix, and Amazon Prime etc, etc.

Facebook <and insert app of your choice> are in the App Store because it adds value to their business model, pure and simple.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

All that waffle and you didn’t answer my question. Why does Facebook <or insert app of your choice> choose to be in the App Store when it’s core functionality works fine in a browser?

Native software programs perform faster in any OS. It’s a intrinsic effect of the technology. It just happens that the App Store is the only medium to distribute native software programs.

Now there are also technical benefits in choosing to work inside another software program … Safari.

So I guess they were looking for performance to be better equipped eventually even to compete with Apple itself as it is becoming common.

 

[m4mario]

Microsoft has free tools too, they are perfectly adequate for many developers.
Those that pay $1000 are those that make serious money.

Like Epic on the App Store.
Only Apple's method of collecting the money is different.

Going by that standards, Xcode and all the developer tools are free as well. It costs $99 to distribute any number of apps in the App Store. For example, Bank of America may have over 100 developers working on its various apps and features and pays $99 per year. If BofA has to do the same with Microsoft's tools, thats $100,000 per year.

Remember, it's $1000 per year, PER DEVELOPER.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They have stated otherwise. It was not a part of its design.

They‘re lying or „bending the truth“. One just has to look at the available in-house and ad-hoc distribution tools available today.

It very well means that any company becoming too successful in any market should look out. Don't get to big, they will come for you

Exactly. Just as competition law works today: you become too big and dominant in markets - and the law will come and apply for you.

Which goes counter to the whole way capitalism and free markets work in a free society

You may be a staunch libertarian that believes in „free“, unchecked capitalism or you maycompetition without any government intervention.

But all civilised societies treat and regulate companies that have become very (too) big or attained a very dominant market position by special rules and laws (e.g. competition laws).

Very small modifications that puts the device in a VERY different situation that it was not prior. So now Apple has to secure that in ways it did not have to before

They don‘t. Sandboxing requirements and limitations are still in place. Also, there’s no obligation on Apple to secure your device for for me or you (beyond what they‘re already doing). Why does Apple have to secure my device more than they do today if I deliberately choose to install third-party applications?

What‘s your point there?

Big corporations are free to choose what I can do on my device?
Big corporations are free to arbitrarily limit what I can do on my device? (That‘s what Apple‘s doing)
But I don‘t get get a conscious choice - and you call that a „free“ society?

 

[theotherphil]

What‘s your point there?

Big corporations are free to choose what I can do on my device?
Big corporations are free to arbitrarily limit what I can do on my device? (That‘s what Apple‘s doing)
But I don‘t get get a conscious choice - and you call that a „free“ society?

The point is iOS isn’t yours to do as you please. You license iOS from Apple. This is something you agree to the first time the device is turned on. You also have 7-14 days to return the device back to Apple for a full refund, no questions asked if you don’t agree with the license.

iOS has never been sold separately, is not open source or public domain and doesn’t belong to the user. It is licensed and by agreeing and continuing to use it, you are bound by it’s subsequent limitations, that you agreed to.

You absolutely can decide what you do with your device, that does belong to you. You are free to throw it in a lake, free to run over it with your car or free to give it away. If you have the expertise and want to install another OS, you are free to do that too. Apple is under no obligation to make it easy for you to do so however.

 

[theotherphil]

Was that a honest question? I already answered. Although it seams that you did not like the answer.

Native software programs work of course faster in iOS, like in any other OS in the planet. It’s a intrinsic effect of the technology. It just happens that the App Store is the only medium to distribute native software programs.

Now there are also technical benefits in choosing to work inside another software program … Safari. I guess they were looking for speed and not be confined to a keyhole on the system eventually competing with Apple itself.

PS: By the way for FB aka even free … so.

So, again, we agree then? There’s value in using Apple’s API’s?

 

[AppliedMicro]

You license iOS from Apple. This is something you agree to the first time the device is turned on.

Not enforceable where I live.

And frankly, selling a device for hundreds of dollars to consumers without presenting me the licensing terms at the time of purchase and then presenting me with licensing terms after the fact sounds like shady bait & switch tactics (and no, not from the seller that sold me the device but from its manufacturer)

You also have 7-14 days to return the device back to Apple for a full refund, no questions asked if you don’t agree with the license.

Oh, I knew that.
But since I don‘t have a contract with Apple, what does that change, and why should I have to put up with them at all? If I can‘t use the device, I legally may have to take it to my seller - and we both know, they‘ll not be giving me a full refund unless required by law to do so. Fortunately, I don‘t have to, since I just click „OK“ and then ignore the terms. to lawfully use my device. In any case, the real culprit here are the manufacturers that present these shady agreements.

Legally, the iTunes and App Stores of course have their own separate agreements that I can choose to decline - and then just not download any additional third-party apps. And it‘s not as if I could legally compel Apple to sell my any „aftermarket“ apps at all.

Apple is under no obligation to make it easy for you to do so however.

I am only asking them to actively stop making it hard for me.