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
However, free access to hardware is different than free access to the App Store. Sideloading gives free access to the hardware assuming it can be done with unsigned apps, which would not require notarization to work.
The DMA does however allow Apple to protect the OS:
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate,
measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
It does not say Apple must do that at no cost, so the requirements for App Stores and apps may be allowed and Apple charging for it also be acceptable.
Free access to hardware and software is different than ensuring apps and app stores do not endanger the integrity of teh hardware or software.
I could find nowhere in the DMA Act that required free access to the App Store; so changing the fee structure would still be compliant.
I am not surprised that Apple will do the minimum needed to be complaint, they are after all a for profit business and will protect their revenue streams.
I suspect a lot of this will be hashed out in court.
I stand corrected. They have 6 months from Sep 2023 to submit their compliance report. I misread the date.
I would expect Apple to have submitted their report before releasing a public announcement, but who knows what they did.
To the AppStore? Absolutely there nothing in the DMA that requires access to it.
But side loading doesn’t require access to the AppStore
But they run afoul in two specific ways:
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.
and we have the definition of identification service. As well as payment services.
| (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; |
| (18) | ‘payment system for in-app purchases’ means a software application, service or user interface which facilitates purchases of digital content or digital services within a software application, including content, subscriptions, features or functionality, and the payments for such purchases; |
| (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; |
And the fact a fee app on the AppStore ether pays 99$ a year for 2million download or pay hundred of thousands of dollars can be argued as unfair and not equivalent
3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.
Actually:
You're yet again confusing the right to modify a system for own use with the right to share and distribute such modifications, which is kept by the companies. EU law specifically allows the former, which is what I've been saying all along.
You will be free to create and distribute your app in the EU outside of Apple's App Store developed with non-Apple tools (although IIRC a free account also gets you access to the tools) and not pay Apple a cent.
And developers gained access to a large and lucrative market for their products; it's a symbiiotic relationship that both should profit from.
AS far as I can tell Apple doesn't charge one as long as you do't host teh store on teh App Store. Cydia, for example, should still be free not to pay Apple.
But that refers to ownership of your copy, not the right to create and market a derivative work.
Apple allows third party payment services and not Apple's in-app payment system even in the App Store so they aren't requiring the use of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."
Am not sure what your point is about an identification service, please explain.
There is a big difference between an API and the name of the API.
I didn’t confuse anything. You’re just making up a limitation that wouldn’t even apply to third-party developers anyway.
We shall see, won't we 👍🏼
Surely you don't think the legislation existed to be utterly pointless, do you?
I don't think Apple's legal team would advise them to come up with a solution which they knew would be tossed out by the EU on day 1. Let's give them some credit here.
The exhaustion of rights creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted.
After a product covered by an IP right, such as by a patent right, has been sold by the IP right owner or by others with the consent of the owner, the IP right is said to be exhausted. It can no longer be exercised by the owner
So..
Sure there is: an API is the list of function names (the namesake "interface"), the name of the API is something like "HomeKit" 😂
I'm talking about the right to modify ones own copy of the bundled OS, are you replying to the right person?
That isn’t what Apple is saying currently. As of now if you distribute a free app outside the AppStore exclusively you must pay Apple a fee.
Apple requires developers to register with Apple to be allowed to sell apps outside the AppStore. In direct violation
Attachments
Spotify CEO Daniel EK today wrote a blog post criticizing the app ecosystem changes that Apple implemented in the European Union under the Digital Markets Act, accusing Apple of putting forward "a new plan that is a complete and total farce" under "the false pretense of compliance and concessions."
Ek says that Apple doesn't "think the rules apply to them," and he believes that most app developers are not going to be able to adopt Apple's new terms.
The 0.50 euro Core Technology Fee collected per install per year (after 1 million installs) is "extortion," according to Ek. Combined with the reduced commission through the App Store (10-20% depending on options selected), Ek claims that developers of popular apps will pay "the same or even more to Apple" than with the prior rules.
According to Ek, Spotify is facing "an untenable situation." With Apple's new terms, Spotify would have to pay 0.50 euros per user along with a 17 percent commission, which is the same or worse as under the old rules. Ek claims that an alternative app store offering could potentially increase customer acquisition costs tenfold because of the need to pay the fee even for non-subscribers.Ek concludes that Apple is "forcing developers to stay with the status quo," which "negates the goal of the DMA." The future that Spotify outlined earlier this week promising a better experience for users in the EU is "less clear," according to Ek, and he calls on European Commissioners to reject Apple's "blatant disregard" of the DMA.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, another outspoken Apple critic, shared similar thoughts yesterday. He said that the App Store changes are a "devious new instance of malicious compliance" aimed at thwarting the Digital Markets Act.
Sweeney said that while Fortnite will return to iOS through a planned Epic Games app marketplace on the iPhone, Epic will continue to "argue to the courts and regulators that Apple is breaking the law."
In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that it is happy to support the success of all developers, and that under the new business terms, more than 99 percent of developers will pay the same amount or less to Apple.
Article Link: Spotify CEO Daniel Ek on Apple's EU Changes: 'They Think the Rules Don't Apply to Them'
Let’s see. Spotify allows you to listen to music authored by independent artists, and they take a (substantial) cut of the revenue they pass to those artists as profit and to pay for the development and runnings costs of the Spotify platform.
Why does that sound familiar?
Not saying I agree fully with Apple’s policies, but seems to me Spotify is as guilty as they are. Of course, Spotify and others clamoring against the App Store are NOT doing it for consumers, they are doing it to line thei own pockets. Talk about hypocrisy.
There is absolutely zero chance of Spotify deciding to pay artists more. Why do you think they got into podcasting in the first place. Specifically to get people to listen less to music, which in turn means less money paid out as royalties.
Again, it does not apply in any way to what we are discussing. Nor is it an accurate description of the term. Also known as the first sale doctrine, it allows for the resale of the specific copy sold. It does not authorize the creation of derivative works.
Sigh. No. The distinction we are discussing is the name of the function called vs the implementation of the function. The code that makes the function do something.
Yes.
1. We were talking about developers, not end users.
2. End users don't have the right to create derivative work except under specific limitations.
It rings very hollow coming from Spotify.
With that said, there is a constant stream of smoke from app developers around apples App Store practices, and at this stage its hard to deny, unless of-course you are a proud member or the "baa army", that Apple aren't looking particularly good in all of this.
With that said, there is a constant stream of smoke from app developers around apples App Store practices, and at this stage its hard to deny, unless of-course you are a proud member or the "baa army", that Apple aren't looking particularly good in all of this.
I'm quite confident Apple has considered the possibility. They're.... pretty well known for making the right fiscal move.
You do realise it's been the same few companies being quoted in the media, right? Spotify, Netflix, Epic, Hey.
Let's just look at the last few "controversies".
1) Apple won in their lawsuit against Epic (while Google most notably lost).
2) In the patent trial with Masimo, the Apple Watch is now back on sale after Apple disabled the blood oxygen sensor.
3) The developer for Hey chose to submit his app in a manner he knew would run afoul of App Store review, then used it to drum up attention on social media for his calendar app, while also insulting another creator in the process. It was basically a nothing burger.
4) Contrary to most people expecting Apple to just cave in to the EU's demands, Apple unveiled their interpretation of how they planned to accommodate the DMA, which was a complete 180 from what everybody here claimed they would do. Of course, the EU still has to sign off on it, but how's that for "think different"? 😉
5) The iPhone 15 pro launched to a whole slew of controversies last year, but you don't hear a squeak about it nowadays.
6) The Vision Pro is predictably facing a massive wave of cynicism and negativity all the way up to its launch date (and I don't expect this assault to abate anytime soon). There's theories of a massive developer boycott just because a few mainstream apps are available (never mind that numerous other streaming apps will be). In hindsight, Apple launching their own content bundle was absolutely the right move, because it made them less reliant on external parties.
7) The other thread about the MBP being gimped at 8gb ram is still going strong (I have bowed out since I have already made my case - simply buy what you need).
8) Apple supposedly being behind on AI. My thoughts are that if Apple isn't doing something the rest of the industry is, maybe it's time to take a good look at said industry just to be sure it's not just a pile of smoke and mirrors. Apple usually has a pretty good pulse on what are genuine movers and what are short-lived fads.
They all strike me as relatively minor issues being blown out of proportion by people with a bone to pick against Apple.
From my read of the documents, Apple only will collect a fee if your app is installed using an Apple ID. If sideloading works properly no Apple ID will be needed to install an app, much as teh Mac does today. You might get the "Unidentified Developer" warning but should still be able to install the app.
However you could not distribute your app through Apple's App Store or one that is part of Apple's external App Store program. At least that's how I read it.
As I have said, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
I suspect, once all is said and done, many developers, especially smaller ons, will decide Apple's deal is not all that bad and opening up the walled garden, instead of helping them make more money, wound up causing new problems to deal with, such as piracy, complying with various tax schemes, getting paid on time, etc.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Over exaggeration seems to be the norm at these days. Apple still makes her money other companies are still making money and everybody lives happily ever after.
With EU legislation you never know 😁
And I am saying this as a EU citizen. Sometimes the EU comes up with regulations for things better left alone. Sometimes during the process, too many bureaucrats get influenced by “stakeholders” in a way that make the outcome, let’s say, less than ideal.
To be fair, there are elections for the EU parliament. If you did not vote, that’s on you then. If you voted, then yes, this is happening with your mandate. Democracy doesn’t mean only things you like will happen.I live in the EU and the "government entity" most certainly does not have my mandate for their overreach