Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’m going to follow myself up and point out that even in legal matters everything is still opinion. It is the opinion of the court etc… some future decision might reverse an earlier legal opinion, an opinion stands as law for only so long as a combination of the courts and the legislature both agree that it should do so. There are whole legal fields dedicated to reading different interpretations into laws…
Yes legally every thing stands until challenged and changed.
But until then, it is clear.

You worded your response like it was fact rather than opinion:
"Incentivizing apps not to take advantage of the benefits of the DMA is steering, it even seems like recent news from Vestager suggests that the EU is thinking that could be steering as well. Steering is putting in place a measure that makes it impossible to use a service."

You even used another EU comment to justify your words (and not the EU is THINKING not saying it is) to give more credence to your claims.

I'm sure Apple has already had plenty of legal advice. As they use them often enough.
The changes made already will be designed to meet as barely as possible what the vague wording of the directive said.
This will drag on and on.

Sadly most advocates seem to want to teach Apple a lesson.
In Australia we call it Tall Poppy Syndrome - pulling successful people and companies down a peg or two.
It's a very negative thing to not celebrate success.
 
Yes legally every thing stands until challenged and changed.
But until then, it is clear.

You worded your response like it was fact rather than opinion:
"Incentivizing apps not to take advantage of the benefits of the DMA is steering, it even seems like recent news from Vestager suggests that the EU is thinking that could be steering as well. Steering is putting in place a measure that makes it impossible to use a service."

You even used another EU comment to justify your words (and not the EU is THINKING not saying it is) to give more credence to your claims.

I'm sure Apple has already had plenty of legal advice. As they use them often enough.
The changes made already will be designed to meet as barely as possible what the vague wording of the directive said.
This will drag on and on.

Sadly most advocates seem to want to teach Apple a lesson.
In Australia we call it Tall Poppy Syndrome - pulling successful people and companies down a peg or two.
It's a very negative thing to not celebrate success.
I’m not going to respond to further pointless quibbles about imprecision in language on a discussion forum.

As I keep saying in this an other threads, my issue is not with Apple’s success or that they are charging fees, but a combination of a few things. For instance, their selective application of those fees. Apple should desire to be a fair platform for all developers and shouldn’t single out certain categories to support the App Store and iOS development while other categories of apps get a free ride.
I think a per download based fee structure for IP is just as unethical when Apple does it as when Unity did it. A per app user fee structure makes more sense and is much fairer. (Apple licensing a developer and charging that developer based on how many users use the tech is fairer than multiple charges for the same user if that user downloads the app more than once…)
 
I’m not going to respond to further pointless quibbles about imprecision in language on a discussion forum.

As I keep saying in this an other threads, my issue is not with Apple’s success or that they are charging fees, but a combination of a few things. For instance, their selective application of those fees. Apple should desire to be a fair platform for all developers and shouldn’t single out certain categories to support the App Store and iOS development while other categories of apps get a free ride.
I think a per download based fee structure for IP is just as unethical when Apple does it as when Unity did it. A per app user fee structure makes more sense and is much fairer. (Apple licensing a developer and charging that developer based on how many users use the tech is fairer than multiple charges for the same user if that user downloads the app more than once…)
No one model for licensing works.
Having worked with an app vendor and how they charged I know it is complex and finding a balance between use and making money takes effort and understanding.

Paying for a seat that can be used concurrently or a smaller fee for everyone to use something still needs monitoring and I know the non profit I worked for exceeded their legal license regularly. They were lucky the software vendor didn’t monitor it closely.

Apple have already stated they will monitor it to ensure small devs are wiped out.

Let’s not forget why they are making this up on the fly… EU changes to a store that worked for over a decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.