Zuckerberg Calls Apple's DMA Compliance Changes 'Onerous' and 'Difficult to Seriously Entertain'

[I7guy]

I maintain that (given what and how many businesses are relying on iOS for their business), the iOS platform has become very much alike to a utility. That’s why it is justified to treat it similarly with legislation - today.

Well I disagree. Popularity of a lifestyle oriented platform should not be a prerequisite to regulation . Obviously the eu agrees as it had to thread the needle to define apple as a “gatekeeper”.

Your point about if the internet „was always meant to be“ a utility (and iOS supposedly wasn‘t) is just a distraction.

Patently false. Can you show me where government regulation took over the internet without compensating the inventor. On 4/40/69 the WORLD WIDE WEB WAS RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. That’s some spin far and away from the taking away apples ip like Robin Hood and giving it away.

Inventions may develop from niche usage to public utilities - whatever they were initially meant to be.

********. If apple is so important then the eu should give apple a few hundred billion dollars instead of taking their App Store and giving it away for free.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Well I disagree. Popularity of a lifestyle oriented platform should not be a prerequisite to regulation.

Of course it is. And often was - see regulation for TV and TV sports rights, for instance (you may disagree of course).

Can you show me where government regulation took over the internet without compensating the inventor

Whatever something was meant to be, whoever invented it and however they were compensated, it may become a public utility - or alike to one.

That’s some spin far and away from the taking away apples ip like Robin Hood and giving it away.

They aren’t giving Apple‘s IP away.
They are merely restricting their right and technical ability to monetise it.

They may develop the greatest, most innovative intellectual properties or software features for iOS. And they may totally monetise it by translating it into device sales - unrestricted by legislation or government interference. They may even grow, say, double their market share against Android and other smartphones. Google or Android smartphone manufacturers can‘t just copy or violate Apple‘s intellectual property for their own devices (as if it was „given away“).

But the legislation restricts Apple’s ability to monopolistically (within the iOS ecosystem) charge others and impose a „tax“ on others‘ IP - or prevent them from competing against Apple‘s own services.

👉 Yet the focus on „IP“ is misleading anyway. When Apple are preventing Spotify or Netflix from selling to customers in-app, it’s not about IP - it’s about access to customers.

 

[I7guy]

Of course it is. And often was - see regulation for TV and TV sports rights, for instance (you may disagree of course).

Of course moving more goalposts. Sports is copyrighted content. Exactly the same as apples App Store. /s

Whatever something was meant to be, whoever invented it and however they were compensated, it may become a public utility - or alike to one.



They aren’t giving Apple‘s IP away.
They are merely restricting their right and technical ability to monetise it.

That’s exactly what they are doing.

They may develop the greatest, most innovative intellectual properties or software features for iOS. And they may totally monetise it by translating it into device sales - unrestricted by legislation or government interference. They may even grow, say, double their market share against Android and other smartphones. Google or Android smartphone manufacturers can‘t just copy or violate Apple‘s intellectual property for their own devices (as if it was „given away“).

This isn’t germane to the conversation.

But the legislation restricts Apple’s ability to monopolistically (within the iOS ecosystem) charge others and impose a „tax“ on others‘ IP - or prevent them from competing against Apple‘s own services.

👉Yes turning the App Store into a public utility.

👉 Yet the focus on „IP“ is misleading anyway. When Apple are preventing Spotify or Netflix from selling to customers in-app, it’s not about IP - it’s about access to customers.

It’s apples ip. It’s again about the eu turning the App Store into a free for all public utility.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s exactly what they are doing.

No, it’s not.

This isn’t germane to the conversation.

Yes, it is. It explains my point why Apple‘s IP is not „given away“, as you claim it is.

👉 Given your unwillingness to engage with points in the discussion (and your repeated dismissal of them as „red herrings“ or „not germane“ without making factual arguments of your own) exhibited here, I won‘t engage with you any further. Have a good day!

 

[I7guy]

No, it’s not.

Got it. So now we’re into they did, they didn’t, they did, they didn’t. Well yes they did.

Yes, it is. It explains my point why Apple‘s IP is not „given away“, as you claim it is.

I suppose you can say because of the core fee it isn’t being given away, but it really is.

👉 Given your unwillingness to engage with points in the discussion (and your repeated dismissal of them as „red herrings“ or „not germane“ without making factual arguments of your own) exhibited here, I won‘t engage with you any further. Have a good day!

👉we obviously have very different viewpoints on the DMA and almost every point surrounding it and historical events as well. Thank you for the public proclamation of not engaging further. Have a great day as well.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That's the problem. You agree with it, so you assume it's true. It's clearly false both in the context of education and business.

Clearly false based on your opinion of what you think is good. While me I can point to How EU court act all the time apparently along side what I agree with. I have 30+ years of law to point to, what do you have?

Sorry. I'd assumed that you were aware of conversations that you had on this forum. Maybe someone else posted with your username.

For example, you thought an "identification service" was a list of developers and not a service like "Sign in with Apple". And you thought messaging service interoperability was the same as multi-service clients.

An identification service incorporates a lot more than signing in with appleID, and nothing in the legal text limits it as such.

Apples core technology services is still a Service in support of their core platform services. .

It states

(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 business users, regardless of the technology used;
7	The gatekeeper shall not require …business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service… 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 …to subscribe to, or register with, any further core platform services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9)… as a condition for being able to use, access, sign up for or registering with any of that gatekeeper’s core platform services…
(43)	Certain services provided together with, or in support of, relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper, such as identification services…payment services or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, are crucial for business users to conduct their business and allow them to optimise services.. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position to require their dependent business users to use any of the services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by those business users. That prohibition aims to protect the freedom of the business user to choose alternative services to the ones of the gatekeeper, but should not be construed as obliging the business user to offer such alternatives to its end users.

Of course, the reason you made those mistakes is because, despite your claim, language is not exact.

Those arguments don't support your claims. They contradict it.

In what way? You think you can make a law that is understood differently in 24 languages? The fact some words can be unclear in one language can be very precise in another. You have nothing backing your claims up, while I can point to 30 years of EU legal tradition and outcome.

You must seem to have a fundamental contradiction to how law works outside of the U.S. system, Everything you know about US Common law and how it works can be thrown in the trash as completely irrelevant to how to understand European continental law.

 

[BaldiMac]

Clearly false based on your opinion of what you think is good. While me I can point to How EU court act all the time apparently along side what I agree with.

Ah, yes. The EU court that decides whether it's "adult" for instructors to give advice to their students. Or maybe its just that you are not following the conversation.

An identification service incorporates a lot more than signing in with appleID, and nothing in the legal text limits it as such.

Apples core technology services is still a Service in support of their core platform services. .

It states

(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 business users, regardless of the technology used;

Again, you were wrong in your interpretation. And the fact that you still think you are right shows that there is room for interpretation and proves my point.

In what way? You think you can make a law that is understood differently in 24 languages? The fact some words can be unclear in one language can be very precise in another. You have nothing backing your claims up, while I can point to 30 years of EU legal tradition and outcome.

Hah! Again, you are admitting to my point in your own rebuttal. And the idea that "30 years of EU legal tradition" hasn't resulted in any laws that require clarification is hilarious.

You must seem to have a fundamental contradiction to how law works outside of the U.S. system, Everything you know about US Common law and how it works can be thrown in the trash as completely irrelevant to how to understand European continental law.

No, I just disagree with you based on your repeated misinterpretation of the source materials you reference.

 

[dba415]

EU should fine apple billions for making a mockery of the dma rules

 

[jlc1978]

If apple is so important then the eu should give apple a few hundred billion dollars instead of taking their App Store and giving it away for free.

They aren't forcing Apple to allow access to their App Store for free. Apple can still charge fees to be on it; they just have to allow 3rd party payment systems and provide user data to app developers at no charge. Apple can charge, as they do, a fee to access the store separate from fees for sales.

Epic/Spotify/Meta may not like having to pay to be on the App Store, but nothing in the EU legislation requires free access to the store. It's about the money, no matter what they say; I'm guessing none of them want to be locked out of the App Store and its customer base.

Yet the focus on „IP“ is misleading anyway. When Apple are preventing Spotify or Netflix from selling to customers in-app, it’s not about IP - it’s about access to customers.

Apple can still charge for access to those customers on their store, just not for selling on a 3rd party store if they don't use any of Apple's core services around the App Store.

Much of the regulation, as I read it, is to prevent mandatory bundling and ensure free access to iOS features, not payments made to Apple for any services beyond that. Charging to be on the App Store will not impact a developer's ability to freely access iOS features outside of the App Store, such as is possible on the Mac today.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple can still charge for access to those customers on their store

...within limits, as the law states:

"The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores"

These are explained in recital 62:

"For software application stores (...) gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. (...) In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation.

Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper. The following benchmarks can serve as a yardstick to determine the fairness of general access conditions: prices charged or conditions imposed for the same or similar services by other providers of software application stores; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for different related or similar services or to different types of end users; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service in different geographic regions; prices charged or conditions imposed by the provider of the software application store for the same service the gatekeeper provides to itself.

👉 Charging Spotify or Netflix 30% for an in-app subscription transaction conducted through their (or even Apple's) payment processing? While charging Uber or AliExpress 0% - and operating their own competing music/video streaming services?

👉 Apple's conditions seem highly questionable in several ways with regards to that (imbalance of rights & obligations, disadvantage for business users providing competing services, unjustified differentiation between digital & other goods, etc.)

 

[Abazigal]

EU should fine apple billions for making a mockery of the dma rules

It’s on them to craft a set of laws that leave no room for alternative interpretations then.

 

[jlc1978]

👉 Charging Spotify or Netflix 30% for an in-app subscription transaction conducted through their (or even Apple's) payment processing? While charging Uber or AliExpress 0% - and operating their own competing music/video streaming services?

Separate from Uber/AliExpress selling tangible goods vs. streaming services, the big companies having considerable bragging power and the are the ones hit with new fees, small developers won't be.

As for Apple Music, as long as Apple doesn't discriminate disproportionately, Apple is in compliance. If the EU decides any charges Apple imposes on competing businesses it may be in Apple's best interest not to let those apps on the store, which would be in compliance with the directive as well.

👉 Apple's conditions seem highly questionable in several ways with regards to that (imbalance of rights & obligations, disadvantage for business users providing competing services, unjustified differentiation between digital & other goods, etc.)

Time will tell; though I think if the EU tries to force Apple to carry streaming services for free they will be in for a long court fight.

Is a 50cents/per year/ for installs over a million transaction fee for apps whose subscription prices are many multiples of that? Such a fee doesn't appear unreasonable. If Spotify doesn't like paying for free streamers (which get the pleasure of ads taht bring in revenue for Spotify), don't offer a free stream option. Neither rApple nor other companies are responsible for fixing a bad business model.

 

[AppliedMicro]

As for Apple Music, as long as Apple doesn't discriminate disproportionately, Apple is in compliance

30% commission while your own service pays "nothing" is very likely disproportionate discrimination.

If the EU decides any charges Apple imposes on competing businesses it may be in Apple's best interest not to let those apps on the store, which would be in compliance with the directive as well.

How so? They need a reason to terminate their (contractually granted) access. "We don't want them on our store anymore, since competitors are unwanted competition" will not stand. You can bet that the EU will very swiftly investigate once Apple terminate Netflix‘s or Spotify‘s developer account and App Store access.

Is a 50cents/per year/ for installs over a million transaction fee for apps whose subscription prices are many multiples of that? Such a fee doesn't appear unreasonable

Apple also intend to charge for apps without subscriptions.

If Spotify doesn't like paying for free streamers (which get the pleasure of ads taht bring in revenue for Spotify), don't offer a free stream option

That doesn't change a thing. Apple intend to charge once the app is downloaded (and possibly forgotten), even if the user isn't even logged in.

 

[jlc1978]

30% commission while your own service pays "nothing" is very likely disproportionate discrimination.

Apple could very well charge a transfer payment to Apple Music so as to keep track of it's profitability; and it's only 15% after the first year.

How so? They need a reason to terminate their (contractually granted) access. "We don't want them on our store anymore, since competitors are unwanted competition" will not stand. You can bet that the EU will very swiftly investigate once Apple terminate Netflix‘s or Spotify‘s developer account and App Store access.

The contract is year to year. Apple can change the renewal terms; such as fees, and nothing precludes Apple changing who is eligible for developer accounts. I suspect, as I said, Apple and the EU would be in for a court fight if they try to force Apple to carry competing services for free, which would be very discriminatory against Apple.

Apple also intend to charge for apps without subscriptions.

If the app makes money there is no reason for Apple not to charge to carry the app on the App Store; whether it's via subscription or fixed price.

That doesn't change a thing. Apple intend to charge once the app is downloaded (and possibly forgotten), even if the user isn't even logged in.

Which is irrelevant to whether Apple should be allowed to charge a “core technology fee” for apps they host where teh developer charges for features. The question is whether it is an unreasonable charge.

Look at Spotify in the EU - over half tehir users a premium subscribers. If you do the math:

For every 100 users, Spotify collects, what 10Euros/month? SO for those 100 d/ls, Spotify pays 50 Euros annually, which is easily covered by 5 users in the first month; even if they drop the sub after a month, Spotify hasn't lost money on them. Even the free subscribers bring in about 4 Euros per year in add revenue, so Spotify doesn't even lose money on those. For the 50 cent fee to damage Spotify they's need many more people to d/l the app and not use it, it works out to about a 20x the premium user numbers to d/l and never listen to a stream, per month, to Wie out the revenue. Not bloody likely.

Spotify's CEO whines about the fee's millions it would cost but conveniently forgets to mention it would be a tiny fraction of teh revenue Spotify generates from being on the App Store. Notice he doesn't threaten to leave it once he can do so and distribute his app elsewhere. If Spotify only releases an update every 2 years, there annual cost is halved.

That some percentage d/l and never use it is Spotify's problem, not Apple, and Apple allows a million d/ls before the fee kicks in so most developers would never see a charge.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple could very well charge a transfer payment to Apple Music so as to keep track of it's profitability; and it's only 15% after the first year.

They could - but in the end, it‘s part of their consolidated services revenue and earnings anyway. It just doesn’t matter to them and their finances (let alone their published finances).

The contract is year to year. Apple can change the renewal terms; such as fees, and nothing precludes Apple changing who is eligible for developer accounts.

Yes - they could terminate any developer account at will and crush that developer‘s business. Or unilaterally alter the terms.

👉That is true gatekeeping power - and the best reason why iOS software installation and fair access to Apple’s App Store should (and will) be regulated by government legislation.

If the app makes money there is no reason for Apple not to charge to carry the app on the App Store

So why don‘t they charge other apps then?

It’s unjustified discrimination. They’re only charging for digital content - for which they’re competing thrmselves.

It‘s not just about Spotify though. Apple charge the Core Technology Fee to every business that distributes apps:

Amazon or AliExpress and their shopping apps.
Public transport ticketing apps.
Google and their Maps app.
Banking apps.

👉🏻 They have all very little interest in leaving the Apple App Store and accept the new business terms. Same is true for small developers with smaller audiences and/or more niche apps.

👉 What this does create a segmentation between developers that have little to no interest in accepting the new business terms - and developers that do (among them, the big streaming or gaming brands).

They’re incentivising developers of apps that aren‘t selling (much) digital content to stay with the old terms and in Apple’s App Store - which, of course, makes third-party stores less attractive.

European regulators need to step in and rectify that (I don‘t think it requires new/additional laws though).

 

[jlc1978]

Yes - they could terminate any developer account at will and crush that developer‘s business. Or unilaterally alter the terms.

Wait - I thought the legislation was to create competition and thus eliminate Apple's stranglehold. / sarcasm (for those who need a tag)

👉That is true gatekeeping power - and the best reason why iOS software installation and fair access to Apple’s App Store should (and will) be regulated by government legislation.

The question is what is fair? 50c for apps that earn the developer revenue after 1 million d/l per year seems very fair; considering the amount of revenue those apps bring to the companies. As I pointed out, it's like a fraction of a percent of the revenue companies like Spotify earn via the App Store.

As the other apps, they are free to stay with the current agreement which costs them nothing.

Free access would not be fair to Apple; anymore than it would be to force Spotify to host subscription streams from another service for free.

 

[jarman92]

I disagree.

Literally my entire point. The language is ambiguous and reasonable minds can disagree. So it's absurd for the EU to be like "Here are some vague laws, figure it out yourself and we'll just fine you later if you're wrong. Good luck!"

 

[AppliedMicro]

Wait - I thought the legislation was to create competition and thus eliminate Apple's stranglehold

That is the status quo before the law enters into force - and a reason and justification why such law is needed.

As the other apps, they are free to stay with the current agreement which costs them nothing.

They are, if Apple’s plan is accepted. But that‘s the issue: Apple is steering them towards their own store - where they do not charge such fee. That is segmenting the developer and user base.

It means I can only get a subset of apps from a third-party store - since every larger developer of free-to-download-and-use apps (e.g. Instagram, Facebook, my transit app) will not publish in that third-party store.

There’s no fair competition for such apps between Apple and third-party stores - and non-availability will steer users to Apple’s own store.

👉 If I can download the most popular “free” apps from Apple’s store, but the same developers can’t viably distribute them on third-party stores (cause they would pay hundreds thousands or millions in Core Technology Fees by agreeing to new business terms, that’s not fair competition.

Free access would not be fair to Apple

It would be fair - as long as Apple are not charging many (most) developers anything today, except the developer subscription.

That was their deliberate decision.

The question is what is fair? 50c for apps that earn the developer revenue after 1 million d/l per year seems very fair

It‘s totally unfair as Apple does not charge it on their own store.

👉🏻 I’m not much opposed to Apple charging a true “core technology fee” for their iOS platform innovation.

👉🏻 Just make it a true core technology fee then! Charge every developer evenly - on every store - including their own. Don’t discriminate between your own store and old business terms - and the new business terms.

That would be fair!

As it currently stands, it’s not. It’s a discriminatory fee to steer developers and users to their store - under the guise of continuing “legacy” business terms.

Literally my entire point. The language is ambiguous and reasonable minds can disagree. So it's absurd for the EU to be like "Here are some vague laws, figure it out yourself and we'll just fine you later if you're wrong. Good luck!"

It’s very simple to come up with a compliant solution with regards to sideloading. Just as the macOS business model.

👉🏻 It’s Apple themselves that chose to make it convoluted and ambiguous compliance, risking to be found noncompliant.

They totally deserve investigations and possible fines and need not be surprised.

 

[AppliedMicro]

PS:

I’m not much opposed to Apple charging a true “core technology fee” for their iOS platform innovation. (…)
Charge every developer evenly - on every store - including their own.

I suppose that some, particularly among the North Americans on this forum, would be gleefully sneering at the dumb Europeans, pointing out how they got what they deserved from their regulation. Being nickel-and-dimed with additional fees on “free” apps (or rather: what used to be free apps).

That said, the cost of app downloads - and/or platform attractiveness for developers and users - would inevitably be factored into consumers purchasing decisions on hardware devices.

We’d see how Apple competes with iPhone for which almost every app will be sold at a price of €0.99 or more - against Android phones on which “free apps remain free”.

And also to which lengths Apple is willing to go and bother their customers (with geo-blocking measures, preventing them from circumventing it through non-EU App Stores).

 

[Abazigal]

PS:

I suppose that some, particularly among the North Americans on this forum, would be gleefully sneering at the dumb Europeans, pointing out how they got what they deserved from their regulation. Being nickel-and-dimed with additional fees on “free” apps (or rather: what used to be free apps).

That said, the cost of app downloads - and/or platform attractiveness for developers and users - would inevitably be factored into consumers purchasing decisions on hardware devices.

We’d see how Apple competes with iPhone for which almost every app will be sold at a price of €0.99 or more - against Android phones on which “free apps remain free”.

And also to which lengths Apple is willing to go and bother their customers (with geo-blocking measures, preventing them from circumventing it through non-EU App Stores).

I foresee most free apps staying in the iOS App Store due to said regulation, and nothing will change for the consumer. There is really little benefit to them being hosted on a third party App Store. What exactly are they hoping to accomplish here? If a developer wants to charge users in the EU a 50-cent fee to download what would normally be a free app, and their install base craters as a result, who do you loses out more? Him, or Apple?

But to your point, we have been paying for apps on iOS for a very long time now. Apps that are either ad-supported or on a trial basis on Android. For example, there is this bubble shooter game my mom plays on her iPad, which had the option of paying a flat fee to permanently remove all ads. Conversely, all the alternatives I searched for on android were also ad-supported, but lacked the option to remove them permanently.

Likewise, Grimvalor is a one-time paid game for iOS, whereas on Android, you get to download and play the first stage for free, and then pay to unlock the rest of the game. Whether it's a measure to combat piracy, or because android users are less predisposed to paying for apps upfront, it's interesting how differently apps are treated on each platform.

The DMA is really not a good piece of legislation. I simply don't see the logic behind Apple being obligated to allow competitors in the EU to leverage the iOS platform, but also access it for free, while being expected to ensure that competitors don’t act in bad faith to harm Apple users. This really should not be justified or normalised.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If a developer wants to charge users in the EU a 50-cent fee to download what would normally be a free app

I don’t think many want to - but if Apple begin charging them, what are they going to do? Just bear these costs themselves? Not talking about games or apps for digital content, but WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Skype, public transit and travel apps, banking/payment apps, etc.

I simply don't see the logic behind Apple being obligated to allow competitors in the EU to leverage the iOS platform, but also access it for free

Given the variety number of business users (and increasingly government as well) relying on the platform it to deliver their service, there should not be a single gatekeeper. And Apple shouldn’t be able to leverage their platform anticompetitively as they’ve been doing in media streaming/sales and games.

Their commissions are discriminatory (only charging for digital content) and disproportionate to the service provided. When Netflix produce TV shows and stream them to users, Apple does not deserve a 30% cut for a payment transaction. And they don’t deserve to restrict them communicating to users through their app, while preferencing their own service. And it’s not as if users “discover” Netflix or Spotify through Apple’s platform. Apple are restricting and discriminating competition.

Also, more generally, the model of unimpeded installation of third-party software on general-purpose operating systems has proven to spur innovation and has been very beneficial to society. Time to establish it on the big mobile platforms, too! And yes, that also includes Apple, too. It’s not as if there’s more than one relevant other mobile OS to choose from, and the barriers to switching are expensive for consumers (that don’t purchase a new smartphone overnight).

The macOS or Windows “hybrid” business models (first-party application software store AND free sideloading) are very good and desirable. No, these platforms aren’t chock-full of spam, scams and dangers for consumers - that’s just FUD. It really doesn’t need a unitary, protective Big Brother that controls everything.

Given how developers and customers are converging on very few popular operating system platforms (Windows/macOS - and iOS/Android on mobile) and the undeniable benefits of that (it doesn’t make sense to have ten opersting systems and developers splitting their development efforts on ten different platforms), these should be regulated as quasi-utilities. Apple will still be generously rewarded for platform innovation. And utility companies don’t operate for free either.

 

[Abazigal]

I don’t think many want to - but if Apple begin charging them, what are they going to do? Just bear these costs themselves? Not talking about games or apps for digital content, but WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Skype, public transit and travel apps, banking/payment apps, etc.

Given that these apps were already free to begin with, I would question the developer’s decision to move them to a third party App Store instead of keeping them in the iOS App Store where they currently pay nothing. Is there something they want to do that they were previously barred from? That might warrant deeper scrutiny instead.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Given that these apps were already free to begin with, I would question the developer’s decision to move them to a third party App Store instead of keeping them in the iOS App Store where they currently pay nothing.

That is the point: Apple is steering them towards staying on their own App Store (and “old” business terms) by not charging the Core Technology Fee for installs from their own store - thereby gaining an unfair advantage over other stores.

Is there something they want to do that they were previously barred from? ? That might warrant deeper scrutiny instead

No. There is something they want to avoid that previously did not exist: Paying a new „Core Technology Fee“ that is only charged on new business terms - but not on Apple’s own store and old business terms. Thereby providing an unfair advantage to Apple’s store.

That warrants deeper scrutiny by EU regulators indeed.

 

[jlc1978]

That is the status quo before the law enters into force - and a reason and justification why such law is needed.

You missed my sarcasm

They are, if Apple’s plan is accepted. But that‘s the issue: Apple is steering them towards their own store - where they do not charge such fee. That is segmenting the developer and user base.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's a choice developers have to make.

It means I can only get a subset of apps from a third-party store - since every larger developer of free-to-download-and-use apps (e.g. Instagram, Facebook, my transit app) will not publish in that third-party store.

There is no reason to beyond wanting to spite Apple. The biggest user base is likely to stay on Apple's App Store and that is where the money will be. Apple is entitled to make money of of that.

There’s no fair competition for such apps between Apple and third-party stores - and non-availability will steer users to Apple’s own store.

👉 If I can download the most popular “free” apps from Apple’s store, but the same developers can’t viably distribute them on third-party stores (cause they would pay hundreds thousands or millions in Core Technology Fees by agreeing to new business terms, that’s not fair competition.

They should have a choice - use Apple's system and pay, or go it alone with a third party App Store and not pay, much like sideloaded Mac apps are today.

It would be fair - as long as Apple are not charging many (most) developers anything today, except the developer subscription.

Apple could simply make the developer fee a sliding scale based on downloads per year; capping it at say 99 Euros for apps under a million and it goes up dramatically at that point.

You don't even need a developer account to develop apps for the iPhone.

That was their deliberate decision.

It‘s totally unfair as Apple does not charge it on their own store.

👉🏻 I’m not much opposed to Apple charging a true “core technology fee” for their iOS platform innovation.

👉🏻 Just make it a true core technology fee then! Charge every developer evenly - on every store - including their own. Don’t discriminate between your own store and old business terms - and the new business terms.

That would be fair!

Perhaps they should modify it a bit - keep a threshold so apps that don't hit the million mark are exempt, and charge the fee above that but offset it by any revenue Apple gets via an in app subscription. That way, big developers cn decide wha is most cost beneficial for them; and small developers avoid the fee altogether.

As it currently stands, it’s not. It’s a discriminatory fee to steer developers and users to their store - under the guise of continuing “legacy” business terms.

It’s very simple to come up with a compliant solution with regards to sideloading. Just as the macOS business model.

I agree, and just charge for apps d/l on the App Store or if the developer wants to use the Apple ID as an authentication method.

We’d see how Apple competes with iPhone for which almost every app will be sold at a price of €0.99 or more - against Android phones on which “free apps remain free”.

Apple's done pretty well so far, just ask the EU.

From what I can gather, Android adopted a freemium model to combat widespread piracy. By offering a subscription/in app model developers sought to make it harder for people to pirate apps.

And the €0.99 price is one of the big challenges for third party stores. Mobile users have grown accustomed to free or very low price apps, and that model for a 3rd party app with a small user base and lower fees willl be hard to be profitable. That is the biggest challenge I see for 3rd party stores beyond ones run by large companies like Amazon, Google, Epic who can afford to run them at a loss or for very slim margins.

 

[Abazigal]

Given how developers and customers are converging on very few popular operating system platforms (Windows/macOS - and iOS/Android on mobile) and the undeniable benefits of that (it doesn’t make sense to have ten opersting systems and developers splitting their development efforts on ten different platforms), these should be regulated as quasi-utilities. Apple will still be generously rewarded for platform innovation. And utility companies don’t operate for free either.

So what's your proposal on how Apple is to be remunerated for use and access of their platform? License it like a FRAND patent (similar to how Apple pays Qualcomm a percentage fee for licensing their 5g modem tech)?

Because that basically sounds like what they are trying to accomplish with the core technology fee. You either buy into the App Store model where the bigger players help subsidise the cost of running the App Store for all the developers of free apps (who incur App Store costs despite not generating any revenue for the App Store beyond the $99 annual developer fee), or everyone pays their share, big or small (which overly penalises the smaller developer who lacks the financial resources to keep up).

I don't think people really realise the implications of what they are proposing when they take the side of companies like Meta, Spotify or Epic. They are not the good guys in this story.