Citing previous cases means nothing…
IF what Apple wants to implement violates the DMA, the EU will respond. That is all that matters. Your posts are just your opinion, nothing else
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.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Apple's EU Changes: 'They Think the Rules Don't Apply to Them'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IF what Apple wants to implement violates the DMA, the EU will respond. That is all that matters. Your posts are just your opinion, nothing else
Again, it's not free if I have to shell out a hundred bucks for the privilege of being amongst the "elite"
Oh in that regard you can just read the DMA.
Article 5 Obligations for gatekeepers
7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.
8. The gatekeeper shall not require business users or end users to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services …as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services…
Article 6
Obligations for gatekeepers susceptible of being further specified under Article 8
4. The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.
7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system…
10. The gatekeeper shall provide business users and third parties authorised by a business user, at their request, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access to, and use of, aggregated and non-aggregated data, including personal data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services or services provided together with, or in support of, the relevant core platform services by those business users and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users.
| (16) | ‘payment service’ means a payment service as defined in Article 4, point (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366; |
| (EU) 2015/2366 | Article 4, point (3) ‘payment service’ means any business activity set out in Annex I; ANNEX I PAYMENT SERVICES (as referred to in point (3) of Article 4) 1.Services enabling cash to be placed on a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account. 2.Services enabling cash withdrawals from a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account. 3.Execution of payment transactions, including transfers of funds on a payment account with the user’s payment service provider or with another payment service provider: (a)execution of direct debits, including one-off direct debits; (b)execution of payment transactions through a payment card or a similar device; (c)execution of credit transfers, including standing orders. 4.Execution of payment transactions where the funds are covered by a credit line for a payment service user: (a)execution of direct debits, including one-off direct debits; (b)execution of payment transactions through a payment card or a similar device; (c)execution of credit transfers, including standing orders. 5.Issuing of payment instruments and/or acquiring of payment transactions. 6.Money remittance. 7.Payment initiation services. 8.Account information services. |
| (17) | ‘technical service supporting payment service’ means a service within the meaning of Article 3, point (j), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366; |
| (EU) 2015/2366 | Article 3, point (j) services provided by technical service providers, which support the provision of payment services, without them entering at any time into possession of the funds to be transferred, including processing and storage of data, trust and privacy protection services, data and entity authentication, information technology (IT) and communication network provision, provision and maintenance of terminals and devices used for payment services, with the exclusion of payment initiation services and account information services; |
| (19) | ‘identification service’ means a type of service provided together with or in support of core platform services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used; |
| (20) | ‘end user’ means any natural or legal person using core platform services other than as a business user; |
| (21) | ‘business user’ means any natural or legal person acting in a commercial or professional capacity using core platform services for the purpose of or in the course of providing goods or services to end users; |
| (29) | ‘interoperability’ means the ability to exchange information and mutually use the information which has been exchanged through interfaces or other solutions, so that all elements of hardware or software work with other hardware and software and with users in all the ways in which they are intended to function; |
Apple will get fined and be forced to obey the rules in a vaguely sensible manner, I predict, unless they backtrack bloody quickly...
So now you turn the discussion from the infrastructure fees and Apple’s “unfair” practices to the cost of development tools? Do you realize that a hundred bucks is a bargain price for software development tools? There is nothing elite about that.
Also, I would not be surprised if Apple would waive that cost for non-profits.
Thanks for telling me you don't know what you're talking about. You don't need Xcode to build iOS apps, and APIs can't be copyrighted.
I live in the EU and the "government entity" most certainly does not have my mandate for their overreach
Never will have any sympathy for Spotify. Their CEO whining about Apple charging them money all the while Spotify pays pennies to the actual artists who make the music is about as hypocritical as one can be.
And for those whining about $100 fee for some development tools? What childish behavior. It was not long ago where one could pay thousands of dollars just for a compiler.
And for those whining about $100 fee for some development tools? What childish behavior. It was not long ago where one could pay thousands of dollars just for a compiler.
Completely besides the point. It’s a question of taking a fee for something you don’t have a right.
Since Apple is still doing sanity checks and notarizing these apps, I would say slim to none.
It’s Apple’s operating system, their APIs and infrastructure (including iCloud, notifications, you know, the whole ecosystem), so it stands to reason if a fee is warranted or not.
No.
Just because it's Apple's operating system, doesn't mean Apple can just demand money by extreme greed here and there for no reasons or just because they just want to, only because you use something made by Apple.
Or do you think anyone would say it's fine that Microsoft would take a massive tax when you use the Microsoft Edge web browser to buy a graphic card / PSU, RAM on Amazon / Newegg and so on (example), just because you run their operating system and their programs with your Microsoft account active under their services / programs?
Ofc not, so why would this type of money grab be ok / fine on iOS / iPadOS?
You guys just need to wake the F up and realize what kind of greed you are accepting here.
Last edited:
APIs can't be copyrighted, the OS inside each iPhone is a copy belonging to the owner of the phone (not Apple) and their infrastructure is totally optional. It should be logical that the fee be waived or at least made required for the services one actually uses.
APIs aren’t copyrighted in EU, ECJ has stated that the functionality, the programming language and the format of data files used by a computer program are not protected by copyright.
So no, the act of providing an application on an alternative sales platform without using apples services doesn’t warrant a fee
Especially when the DMA explicitly instructs that interoperability shall be provided at no cost.
That doesn’t mean what you think it means. It simply means that I can create a set of APIs with the same names as existing software. It doesn’t mean that I can access someone else’s APIs without permission.
Notably, the copy on your phone does not belong to the developer. Nor does it entitle you or the developer to modify that copy. The idea that a platform developer can’t charge for access to it’s platform should be easily refuted by all the platform developers that charge for access to their platform.
It’s not the API but the functionality behind it. Let’s say Spotify has an API to stream their music. Or Xwitter has an API for accessing Xweets. Just because the API is not "copyrighted" does not mean it is free to use and there will be no costs.
What’s behind the API is developed, maintained, and provided by Apple, and to some extend they have a right to charge for it.
Sure, but the API or reverse engineering the API to be able to use it is completely free to do.
In the same way every legal cydia application that payed Apple zero to function or other application that circumvents apples certification without jailbreaking are completely legal.
Edit:
Aka using the APIs are open source and not apple’s proprietary as it’s seen by the law.
The technology underneath isn’t even used.
The judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd
Last edited:
Small players are specially the ones who lose.
1- pay 99 dev fee - release free app in AppStore- runaway success - pay nothing.
2- pay 98 dev free - release free app in GitHub AppStore - runaway success - pay huge amounts of money I haven’t even earnt to Apple.
Sound fair?
But then you have to succumb to apples moral policing. You know I can’t get the app for my vape on iOS because vaping is bad for me?
Why not? You can do just that on every single other mainstream os.
And how can you justify a $99/year fee on what is basically a list of function names?
It actually does, both in the EU and in the US. You're confusing the fact that Apple doesn't need to facilitate the exploits used for jailbreaking with the fundamental right to freely modify what goes on in my device.
Force a company to do something against their own policy, and then act shocked when they give you letter of the law resistance.
I mean if Spotify or Epic were bending over backwards to help artists, they would at least not be raging hypocrites. Spotify, even on non Apple platforms, pays musicians less than any of their competitors. Must be all that corporate oppression keeping them from doing better. It’s not like the music industry had a good reputation for this BEFORE streaming. From what I have seen artists make more off Apple than other platforms.
For all of you threatening to leave, do it. Jump of the bandwagon and cancel you MR account to go live in that other world. If that is what you want, I don’t understand why you are here at all. You have a choice. Use it. Don’t complain about Ford not making Corvettes. Buy the Chevy and be happy.
Unless, of course, you already shill for Chevy and just hang out here to sow discontent.
I mean if Spotify or Epic were bending over backwards to help artists, they would at least not be raging hypocrites. Spotify, even on non Apple platforms, pays musicians less than any of their competitors. Must be all that corporate oppression keeping them from doing better. It’s not like the music industry had a good reputation for this BEFORE streaming. From what I have seen artists make more off Apple than other platforms.
For all of you threatening to leave, do it. Jump of the bandwagon and cancel you MR account to go live in that other world. If that is what you want, I don’t understand why you are here at all. You have a choice. Use it. Don’t complain about Ford not making Corvettes. Buy the Chevy and be happy.
Unless, of course, you already shill for Chevy and just hang out here to sow discontent.
Do people expect Apple to simply roll over & play dead when faced with losing all that revenue and STILL being the one blamed if a security loophole is found? Spending money on lawyers to find every possible loophole is not going to be an impediment for Apple.
Well it’s their gamble, if they lose they will face 58 billion € fine. And this isn’t something that takes years, but 3months
That’s a non sequitur. No one said anything about charging for a list of function names.
Nope. Both US and EU copyright law give the copyright holder exclusive rights to create derivative works subject to specific limitations.