It is a Swedish company, so why should it pay? The phone I use it my property, not Apple's.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games and Spotify Say Apple's Latest DMA Changes Are 'Illegal' and 'Deliberately Confusing'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I don't care one way or the other. It's Microsoft's choice whether or not to charge for their IP. If Microsoft decided to start doing so, they'd completely be in their right to do so.
Explain how taking a company's property and making them give it away to others, for free, is not theft.
I didn't need to read up on the direct hotel booking concept. Not that it matters, because this is the internet and anyone can claim anything, but I promise you I know more about the economics of hotel booking than you think I do. You didn't "get" me. I did not argue that Google wasn't charging hotels to use their platform, because OF COURSE THEY ARE. That doesn't change the fact that hotels make more money from direct bookings than they do when they go through OTAs, and it is impacting their bottom line. Direct bookings absolutely have higher profit margin than through OTAs.
Why do Swedish companies not have to pay for use of others' property? Seems like an unfair competitive advantage the EU should look into.
Yes, your phone is your property. However, iOS is not your property, it is Apple's, and you (and developers) license it. So if the developer wants to use Apple's property to make apps, then Apple has a right to ask for money for the use of its property.
Another example when you buy a song on iTunes or Amazon Music - you buy a license to that song for your personal use. That doesn't mean you can use the song in your YouTube video or Twitch stream - you need a different license to do that. Same deal here.
How does the ability for people to directly buy stuff to the businesses but Apple and directly be served by them became theft? Can you explain the rationale?
I don't think they should have that right. Spotify to make an App need to use iOS APIs. They should pay for that use. They pay AWS for it use, they pay MS for the use of Windows APIs, they also pay Apple for macOS APIs ... so on and so forth. iOS should be no exception.
It very important that businesses, may be you have one or wanna create one, have the right to provide and charge their customers for the things they create and sell.
Don't you think?
Last edited:
Apple owns iOS. Developers license Apple's Intellectual Property (iOS) to write their apps. Said apps use APIs Apple develop to function on the phone. Apple created, maintains, and improves that property, and is asking to be paid for the use of their property. Either through commissions in the App Store, or by developers paying the Core Technology Fee for those developers who do not wish to use the App Store. What many on here are arguing is that Apple shouldn't be allowed to ask developers to pay the CTF, and it looks like the EU agrees the CTF won't be allowed.
I think that's theft. The EU is going to do what the EU is going to do, and the EU has the right to do that in their market. I'd just like everyone to be honest about what it's doing and what they're supporting.
The oracle ruling simply says that I can create my own OS that uses the same APIs as iOS, so it can run iOS apps. Which has nothing to do with your claim.
Thanks! I was halfway through a long complicated write up getting into the "fair use" test, but you beat me to it in a much clearer and more succinct way
Suppose you are a business.
Apple isn't just asking to be payed for the use of their APIs. Apple was asking you to deliver your customers to them along with your cash register. The App Store is as the name implies, a Store, a Shop. Apple was then paying you 70% to 85% of what the App Store charged their Customers to have access your business services and things you create. Because there is only one App Store, that means you have no Customer but Apple for your iOS App / Digital Business. Furthermore, because you have no other legal means to sell, whatever leads you get, you get it for the App Store.
Nice business eh?
With the DMA came the CTF, Apple answer to some regulations. As per Apple policy, CTF is only applicable to businesses choosing either selling through another Store of the kind Apple App Store, which basically demand the same. Or, if qualified, if choose to Web Publish your App. Now, go and check what it means to be qualified to do so. Basically means that you need first to be in the Apple App Store for a certain time, a very fluent one, a million or so users, payed maybe ... ...
Either way you are down to square one. Hand over your cash register and customers.
Unless you are say a very very large business. Nice one for the future of the economy and those garage businesses isn't it?
Tell me one large sustainable business that ever came from the App Store in the last decade, none, 0. You got some “singer song writers” with momentarily blasting success for a while and the simplify vanished. The ones that came with any kind of lasting sustainable business were outside operators or whose app are ... guess what ... free. There is a reason for that.
Furthermore, the way CTF is built, means that no free Apps will be deployed outside of the App Store. This is steering, pure and simple. Ops, they change that ... but have look if they are that clear. You know, Facebook is a free App, and they make loads of money because of it, yet pay 0 to Apple because ... Apple Shop, Apple rules.
I though that to you is very important that businesses, may be you have one or wanna create one, have the right to provide and charge their customers for the things they create and sell? Not just Apple.
Because of this practice, the DMA is regulating to decouple the Shops / Stores from prominent internet connected devices. It’s gettin a bit distracted regulating the App Store policies itself in my opinion, that should never be the focus as it’s not the fundamental issue. If you actually reduce the problem to its core.
Cheers.
Last edited:
You live in a wrong country to understand that. We are not owned by a company.
And when I lived in Germany? My opinion about property rights hasn't changed since then.
How on Earth does correctly pointing out that Apple owns iOS suggest that I think Apple owns me? All I want is for developers to compensate Apple for the use of Apple's intellectual property.
Do you think Disney owns me because I can't sell a novel set in the Star Wars universe without licensing their intellectual property? I mean I bought the Original Trilogy on Blu Ray a few years back. So, does that mean I can do whatever I want with Star Wars now and not have to pay Disney?
It can be felt. The way you bat for it.
I understand all of that (although disagree with some of how you describe it). We just disagree about whether or not the DMA is appropriate or not.
I fundamentally believe that the justification for regulating a company so strictly needs to be very high, and the EU has not met that justification with the DMA. If Android didn't exist, or operated under the same "no side loading, no alternate app stores" policy, then the EU would be 100% justified in forcing Apple to open up. Same if Apple had 90% of the smartphone market like Windows did in the desktop OS market in the 1990s - I'd be in support of forcing Apple to open up. But Android does exist. Customers and developers who do not like Apple's business model are free to chose Android - which has almost 50% more users in the EU than iOS does. So there is CLEARLY market choice. I do not believe developers have a right to be on Apple's platform just because they want to be. And they certainly don't have a right to be on Apple's platform without compensating Apple when Apple clearly is asking to be compensated.
And no, before someone jumps in and says "BUT APPLE HAS MORE THAN 50% OF MOBILE APP REVENUE" it doesn't matter that Apple makes more money for developers than Android does. In my mind, that is even further justification for Apple to be compensated for building a platform where users want to spend money on quality software. Remember Apple was told for years that they were doomed by not opening up, that Android was going to eat their lunch, that their business model was going to hurt them. Well now that it is clear that the business model doesn't hurt them, a lot of the same people who were screaming "Apple is doomed because they're not opening up" are now screaming "Apple's business model is so anticompetitive that the government should come in and force Apple to accept the same business model they we said Apple was doomed for not accepting."
I'll add that while I have problems with FORCING Apple to allow side loading and alternate app stores, as I've said repeatedly on this and other threads, I wish they would have opened up on their own accord. Also, for the record, I am against Apple's anti-steering policies, although I understand why they are in place (and no, it's not just about revenue, although that is certainly a large part of it).
At the end of the day, no matter how you look at it, developers are using Apple's intellectual property when they make an iOS app. And, in my opinion, if Apple wants to be compensated for that, they should be compensated for that. I think the CTF is a perfectly reasonable way to do that if you're going to force Apple to allow side loading and alternate app stores. I don't know what the EU expected when they wrote a law that says "you can't use the business model you prefer" but then didn't explain what would be acceptable. My guess is they assumed Apple wouldn't charge anything at all if Apps weren't in the App Store, and Apple is not entitled to payment at all in this situation, but if that's the case, they should own it and write that gatekeepers cannot charge for access to the OSes and APIs they develop, or they can only charge by an annual fee, or whatever.
Last edited:
The difference is you are batting for Apple's profit, while we are about less expenditure...and consumer rights.
Just want to share a relevant anecdote about this. Android, in my experience, has more free software available. Hence, consumers don't need to spend as much since there are more free alternatives available for a given app. In my case, I had never had to pay for a Reddit client, since Slide was FOSS.
When I switched to iOS in 2019, I found that there weren't free alternatives to the official reddit app. Apollo had a free tier, but it was severely limited in functionality. I ended up having to pay for Apollo.
All this to ask - do Apple users pay more on software because they want to? Or because there are generally fewer free alternatives?
You didn’t ask that.
You „asked“ why the (EU) percentage of iPhone revenue would be significantly different than the percentage of App Store revenue. And again, it most likely isn’t.
I suspect that Europeans are a bit less app-crazy than other markets. For several reasons, among them older average age and having less of a microtransaction culture. But that admittedly is conjecture. I would agree that geographic percentage of App Store revenue is broadly in line with percentage of iPhone sales - or overall sales. Having said that…
First of all, I do believe that the 7% figure is (just as Macrumors understood it) the same he meant to refer to in both conference calls. And while I do agree it’s still somewhat ambiguous, I believe he did get it right the second time - with „of the total“ referring to the service revenue he was asked about. And that they disclose - contrary to app store revenue.
Furthermore the EU representing only 7% of (just) global App Store revenue - is obviously implausible.
We can look at it differently:
The world‘s population currently stands at about 8.2 billion people.
Of which India and Africa total for about 2.9 billion - about 35% of the world‘s population.
The European Union‘s is about 449 million - or 5.5% of the world‘s population.
👉🏻 Given how Apple is lumping in the European Union with the whole of Africa and India, there‘s no way that the EU‘s share of Apple‘s (App Store, Services, overall, whatever) revenue is not way higher than 5.5%. Going by Apple’s reported geographic distribution of revenue, that would mean that Apple revenue per capita of the population is only somewhat higher in Europe than it is in Africa and India.
That’s unreasonable by any indications like GDP/GNI, purchasing power, wages and salaries, estimations of market share and what not. The EU share of Apple’s revenue isn’t only slightly higher than
It‘s as reasonable as claiming „the U.S. must account for only 17% or so of Apple’s global revenue. Because:
- The Americas region accounts for 42% of Apple’s revenue.
- The U.S. makes up about a third of the Americas‘ population (334 million of slightly more than 1bn)
- The U.S. share of Apple’s revenue is „a bit“ higher than its share of the Americas‘ population (40% instead of 33).
- That’s why the U.S. must be only 17 or 18% of Apple’s revenue.
👉🏻 That‘s nonsense.
It says people can use the APIs to make compatible software. Google doesn't owe a cent to Oracle. Apple can piss off too.
It’s not.
India has 17x the population of Germany (the largest EU country). If India overtook Germany in absolute sales of iPhones for the first time last year, that means India‘s iPhones sales per capita of respective population is only a fraction of Germany‘s.
If you’re telling us that the European Union, one of the richest regions in the world, only so slightly „overperforms“ in iPhone sales or Apple revenue, e.g. 7% as opposed to the „expected“ 5.5% (share of the world’s population), you‘ll soon run out of countries that will make sense.
There have to be countries that compensate for the very low relative sales in India - and Africa (you won‘t be telling us they‘re a great iPhone market, will you?) - for aggregate numbers to make any sense.
They must be either very populous (the EU isn‘t, compared to India).
Or have much higher sales than their share of the population (more than 7% vs. 5.5!).
That is not what the ruling said. Please read an overview of the decision - I like this one from Scotusblog, but you're welcome to find your own source. My guess is you'll continue to argue the sky is green; however. Still not sure how a US Supreme Court case impacts Apple's fight with the EU over the DMA.
You left out non-EU Europe and the Middle East. So another 700 million people. So the EU makes up about 11% of Apple's European segment by population. Seems pretty reasonable to me that they makeup 28% (7% divided by 25%) of the European segments smartphone revenue.You didn’t ask that.
You „asked“ why the (EU) percentage of iPhone revenue would be significantly different than the percentage of App Store revenue. And again, it most likely isn’t.
I suspect that Europeans are a bit less app-crazy than other markets. For several reasons, among them older average age and having less of a microtransaction culture. But that admittedly is conjecture. I would agree that geographic percentage of App Store revenue is broadly in line with percentage of iPhone sales - or overall sales. Having said that…
First of all, I do believe that the 7% figure is (just as Macrumors understood it) the same he meant to refer to in both conference calls. And while I do agree it’s still somewhat ambiguous, I believe he did get it right the second time - with „of the total“ referring to the service revenue he was asked about. And that they disclose - contrary to app store revenue.
Furthermore the EU representing only 7% of (just) global App Store revenue - is obviously implausible.
We can look at it differently:
The world‘s population currently stands at about 8.2 billion people.
Of which India and Africa total for about 2.9 billion - about 35% of the world‘s population.
The European Union‘s is about 449 million - or 5.5% of the world‘s population.
👉🏻 Given how Apple is lumping in the European Union with the whole of Africa and India, there‘s no way that the EU‘s share of Apple‘s (App Store, Services, overall, whatever) revenue is not way higher than 5.5%. Going by Apple’s reported geographic distribution of revenue, that would mean that Apple revenue per capita of the population is only somewhat higher in Europe than it is in Africa and India.
That’s unreasonable by any indications like GDP/GNI, purchasing power, wages and salaries, estimations of market share and what not. The EU share of Apple’s revenue isn’t only slightly higher than
It‘s as reasonable as claiming „the U.S. must account for only 17% or so of Apple’s global revenue. Because:
- The Americas region accounts for 42% of Apple’s revenue.
- The U.S. makes up about a third of the Americas‘ population (334 million of slightly more than 1bn)
- The U.S. share of Apple’s revenue is „a bit“ higher than its share of the Americas‘ population (40% instead of 33).
- That’s why the U.S. must be only 17 or 18% of Apple’s revenue.
👉🏻 That‘s nonsense.
Have read. Huawei Pura 70 is using that project sponsored by the Federal Government of Germany, get by to Google's Play store. The Europeans can buy that phone, while the Americans have lost that right. Apple is yet to make such a phone.
Who's arguing against the DMA...in the EU?
US Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in the EU...
The person I am replying to is misunderstanding a US Supreme Court ruling and saying that it means Apple can't charge for API access - I provided a link to an explanation of the case that shows the poster they are misinformed. I also pointed out that the US Supreme Court has no bearing on what we're talking about here.
Good you understand. I also try to understand people, even if we have differences of opinion. I tried to describe it the way I see it in lame terms without the fluff / glorifications around the App Store, based on what is actually happening. The storyline built for it borrows concepts usually found in the retail business model and agency model.
I don't think Apple is being regulated specifically. But a certain class of devices and platforms that are crucial to the Internet infrastructure, that weren't yet regulated. This is not new, other devices and platforms part of such infrastructure were also regulated previously by government bodies across the globe. Those regulations were crucial to make it possible and to be trusted by all businesses and the general population. Digital business, digital ownership, liberal access to information and the future of the economy is totally dependent on the Internet infrastructure / platform and how It supports this.
Without the Internet, a thing whose cost is shared and built by us all, there would be no need for an iPhone. It would be a paperweight. The other way around is not true.
It just happens that the iPhone is in the list of devices of such class. If not, we would not be debating this subject on this forum.
As I've said, I believe this is applicable to all. Android did allow side loading, but it was always marked as a danger danger danger area, do it at your own peril, are you a developer? ... but the DMA if not already banning the term for a certain class of devices, it willl. Yes, the user will still need to give permission to install an App, or for the App ro access this or that OS function, yes it may give permission to install any App from a particular store, yes there will be a warning concerning the install of software that did not come with the device ... etc etc. But all this sodeloading business is part of a storyline created to to keep users within the grasp of these Stores, just that ... is there to make it a step down from illegal. No one will be side loading anything in the future on certain classes of devices. There will be multiple shops, some of them huge like the App Store, others as small as a developer selling his one App to digital service. Much like it ever was before the emergence of these mega Stores selling whatever on the back of these kinds of devices.
Device and platforms OEMs, will of course charge for the use of their technology, it may be as simple as APIs. As they always charged, as even internet service providers charge ... all rightly so.
It does not matter the amount of money companies currently make or can make out of these practices. Apple or otherwise in the platforms and devices they product under a certain regulated class, if they want to play in the EU market, will need to abandon them at the door. It does not matter also if people keep or not buying these devices, their numbers, etc etc.
You see. People talk a lot about Google. But Google could not exist under the App Store / Device regime. Just check how much Google pay Apple to be the default search engine on Safari. No garage business could get there. MSN, maybe Yahoo (yuck) could get, Google tech would be lost. If this is eventually left alone, it's a more aggressive AOL comeback on the back of the work and investments of all of us. This cannot be.
A lot of liberties that now some companies want to charge, to put a paywall on, were cemented by prior regulations. Otherwise not possible.
What Apple did, many companies wanted to do before yet were stopped by regulations. Apple and others got some slack until now, because a class of devices and platforms on the edge of Internet were kept out go the loop. No one expected this such aggressive behavior towards third party properties from these companies. Apple storyline around its practice, reduces the Internet to ... a web browser on iOS ... the rest is theirs. Yet ... wait, if the Internet was gone, nothing on the iPhone would work. Such reduction is proven to be absurd. Yet, still here we are. That is all.
True. I think if Apple had a simple App Store service tier just app notarization, hosting, distribution and install, API licensing, much like a Cloud based Distribution Service ... , no listing, no part of the App Store search, no App Store billing & payment, nothing ... a tier that developers would also pay for such a service, this thing could be simply sorted (of course nowhere near 10% of ones revenue, much less 30%, no closer to similar file distribution mechanisms which in what is in effect). Furthermore, would be better for users, since once an App was downloaded could be part of the list of stuff they already downloaded, side by side with stuff sold by the App Store.
But Apple wanted all business customers to be handed over, and the cash registers of whatever business they thought needed. So they went for an all or "nothing" strategy. Not only that, they also required specific creators goods to be inventoried independently on the App Store. Has I remember game streams, so the App Store would start selling these kinds products on the back of third party IP. In other words, dictating business models, go to market of third party products, so on and so forth.
This was bound to blow... the process just only started. Hopefully regulators will not get distracted with companies complains, such as Epic or Spotify over App Store policies. App Store policies is not the crux of the matter, but the tie between this internet connected devices and their App Stores.
Absolutely. They should be payed for that. But to be honest, I think they are the ones that created the mess while not effectively listening to the business owners. Its very hard to convince anyone that say an AirBnb or Uber App uses less iOS / API then a note taking App, or say an Accounting App ... for instance. So Apple motivations don't seam to be guided by that at all.
The worth of the iPhone is also indexed to the Apps running on it. So there is an intangible value being exchanged, that in one part leads to more iPhone sales, and the other to better Apps. This before any money being transacted.
Cheers.
PS: Will the fact that it may be harder for the Apple App Store to get customers, to get control over the cash register of third party businesses ... have an impact on Apple valuation, maybe. On Apple profits, maybe. But such loss does not make illegit the need to regulate for an open commerce future keeping the good lessons of the past.
Apple has shown that its ambitions are not inline with the tacit Internet guiding principles. In fact, if some stock holders opinions around are any representation of how Apple see it, it seams that these tacit principles become to be the source of all bad doings, dangerous and harmful to people, go figure. So here we are.
Last edited: