Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,313
24,058
Gotta be in it to win it
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.
People are like Monday morning quarterbacks and seem to be arguing like lawyers, except that case precedent has never been shown.

It’s “ABA”, anything but Apple. In spite of the fact that the competition has all of the functionality that apple has, some are cheering for government to bust them open so that iOS=android.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iOS Geek

jlc1978

macrumors 603
Aug 14, 2009
5,515
4,292
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.

Utility regulation would no doubt be a mess, especially since Apple et. al. would be assured of a fixed profit or return on capital investment; which means a lot of back and forth between the platforms, regulators, and users (i.e. developers) on what is a fair return.

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 coagree - Apple has simply said if you want to use our technology here is a flat fee if you don't want to be part of the commission sales model. Ideally, with sideloading a developer could completely for go teh App Store, Apple ID, etc. and market and sell their app independent of Apple.

I doubt many would do that as they would only reach a small fraction of the App Store user base and have fixed costs that may not get covered, let alone recouping variable ones.

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.

Of course, they want access to Apple's user base for free on the App Store. It's not about their customer they' calm they are fighting for against the evil empire called Apple.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2008
2,284
2,607
There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's a choice developers have to make.
Developers choose the software application stores they’re offering in.
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.
Absolutely. That’s competition - and I suppose that Apple‘s will be the dominant App Store for the foreseeable future, maybe forever.
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.
Exactly - and that includes particularly the Core Technology Fee.
As the other apps, they are free to stay with the current agreement which costs them nothing.
…which is exactly their anticompetitive move at gaining unfair advantage over other stores.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2008
2,284
2,607
So what's your proposal on how Apple is to be remunerated for use and access of their platform?
Device sales. Very simple. They’re earning billions from that.

And possibly developer fees. While I‘d prefer there to be no „Core Technology Fee“ and I have some doubts about their legality in light of the „free of charge“ provisions in the DMA, I‘m not much opposed to it in principle. If they at least charged them fairly.

Because that basically sounds like what they are trying to accomplish with the core technology feeit‘s
No - it’s not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. It is, as you (almost) say yourself…
You either buy into the App Store model
A fee that steers developers of „free“ or low-priced apps towards Apple‘s own store and designed to cement the status quo of their terms. Which have been found anticompetitive (from a point of legislators).

where the bigger players help subsidise the cost of running the App Store for all the developers of free apps
They aren‘t subsidising the cost of running the App Store - they’re directly „subsidising“ Apple’s earnings.

or everyone pays their share, big or small (which overly penalises the smaller developer who lacks the financial resources to keep up).
They don‘t. They don‘t pay their share when continuing distribution on Apple’s own App Store according to the old business terms.

The Core Technology Fee is a Non-App Store Fee. It applies to apps that distribute outside of Apple‘s App Store. Yet at the same time, Apple‘s App Store and the apps offered there are exempt under Apple‘s old terms.

👉 That is a big deterrent for developers of free or cheap apps not to adopt the new business terms (and therefore not distribute on alternative stores) - and gives the Apple App Store an unfair advantage.
 

jlc1978

macrumors 603
Aug 14, 2009
5,515
4,292
Developers choose the software application stores they’re offering in.

Exactly. They will have a choice, assuming companies decide to compete with Apple.

Absolutely. That’s competition - and I suppose that Apple‘s will be the dominant App Store for the foreseeable future, maybe forever.

Probably; given it's inherent user base size advantage.

Exactly - and that includes particularly the Core Technology Fee.

As long as they don't use any of Apple's services, just like the Mac OS model, they shouldn't have one. Want to use teh App Store? Apple sign your App? Use the Apple ID to activate your app? Then you should pay Apple's Core Technology Fee or go with the old model. Even with the CTF, most apps likely would never have to pay it because they'd not hit the d/l threshold.

…which is exactly their anticompetitive move at gaining unfair advantage over other stores.

Any store is free to offer the same deal; it's just the cost of doing that makes it uneconomic..

There's no upside for a free app to leave Apple, unless they want to add features not available to signed apps, since they pay Apple nothing but a developer's fee.

They aren‘t subsidising the cost of running the App Store - they’re directly „subsidising“ Apple’s earnings.

Maybe, but that's the whole purpose of anything a company sells.
 

lionballs

macrumors newbie
Dec 20, 2020
10
20
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.
why does anyone need a proposal?

they dont deserve to be renumerated beyond what theyre already capable of wihtout it.... just like with macos or windows.

i dont know why you guys are all so glued to believing ANY corporation DESERVES some sort of compensation for creating forced markets. Its like you guys all have stockholm syndrome.

Apple will be absoloutely fine. "sideloading" is in itself a stupid word... it should be called.... installing... just as we've done without issue for 40+ years on every other major operating system... we dont need to be forced to use a unelected capricious middle man that behaves like a mobster to choose what we do with OUR OWN DEVICES.

apple created a jail for their own profit, not for your intrests... they dont have any moral high ground to even pretend at.

apple is the BAD guy in this story... every which way to tuesday. stop blindly supporting evil anti-consumer behavior.
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,313
24,058
Gotta be in it to win it
why does anyone need a proposal?

they dont deserve to be renumerated beyond what theyre already capable of wihtout it.... just like with macos or windows.

i dont know why you guys are all so glued to believing ANY corporation DESERVES some sort of compensation for creating forced markets. Its like you guys all have stockholm syndrome.

Apple will be absoloutely fine. "sideloading" is in itself a stupid word... it should be called.... installing... just as we've done without issue for 40+ years on every other major operating system... we dont need to be forced to use a unelected capricious middle man that behaves like a mobster to choose what we do with OUR OWN DEVICES.

apple created a jail for their own profit, not for your intrests... they dont have any moral high ground to even pretend at.

apple is the BAD guy in this story... every which way to tuesday. stop blindly supporting evil anti-consumer behavior.
All well and good except that customers voted with their $$$ and devs voted with theirs. It’s not like the the airwaves where the government has a monopoly and you have to come to the government to buy a slice of the air.

Everybody consented and voluntarily elected to opt-in to the ecosystem.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,795
10,933
why does anyone need a proposal?

they dont deserve to be renumerated beyond what theyre already capable of wihtout it.... just like with macos or windows.

i dont know why you guys are all so glued to believing ANY corporation DESERVES some sort of compensation for creating forced markets. Its like you guys all have stockholm syndrome.

Apple will be absoloutely fine. "sideloading" is in itself a stupid word... it should be called.... installing... just as we've done without issue for 40+ years on every other major operating system... we dont need to be forced to use a unelected capricious middle man that behaves like a mobster to choose what we do with OUR OWN DEVICES.

apple created a jail for their own profit, not for your intrests... they dont have any moral high ground to even pretend at.

apple is the BAD guy in this story... every which way to tuesday. stop blindly supporting evil anti-consumer behavior.
Do you have an argument here other than insulting people that disagree with you? There is no law or moral standard that says every OS must be as open as Windows. Especially when that model has led to a trillion dollar malware industry.
 
Last edited:

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,696
22,257
Singapore
why does anyone need a proposal?

they dont deserve to be renumerated beyond what theyre already capable of wihtout it.... just like with macos or windows.

i dont know why you guys are all so glued to believing ANY corporation DESERVES some sort of compensation for creating forced markets. Its like you guys all have stockholm syndrome.

Apple will be absoloutely fine. "sideloading" is in itself a stupid word... it should be called.... installing... just as we've done without issue for 40+ years on every other major operating system... we dont need to be forced to use a unelected capricious middle man that behaves like a mobster to choose what we do with OUR OWN DEVICES.

apple created a jail for their own profit, not for your intrests... they dont have any moral high ground to even pretend at.

apple is the BAD guy in this story... every which way to tuesday. stop blindly supporting evil anti-consumer behavior.

It’s not a matter of whether Apple deserves it or not. They created the platform, the law is indeed on their side with regards to how they decide to monetise it (similar to how Nintendo decides to profit off their switch platform). In my opinion, there is really nothing wrong with Apple selling extremely profitable hardware (thereby aggregating the best customers in the process), then proceeding to charge developers a fee for publishing apps on said platform.

Nor is Apple obligated to deal with any developer who refuses to access to those terms. It’s not about Stockholm syndrome. Right is right, and my issue with the DMA is that it is not being entirely honest about what it behaviour it would actually like Apple to change.

The first step the EU needs to do is be upfront about why they are implementing the DMA, which is really a glorified form of protectionism and an admission they are unable to compete with the major US tech giants.

The new rule basically states Apple have to provide the App Store on terms decided by the EU. And yes, that’s a violation of Apple’s property, but they think it’s worth it for X, Y, Z, but no one wants this kind of be honest about that. So, you end up making up all these rules that sound good and make everyone feel good, which implicitly means there’s loopholes a mile wide, and so it’s no surprise to me that Apple has opted to take advantage of those loopholes.


And like I said, I find it funny that even as the EU is pushing for Apple to open up, my country is trialing a more closed version of Android.

I maintain the DMA is not a good piece of legislation and it should not be normalised or justified.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2008
2,284
2,607
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.
I’m not taking the side of these companies. I’m taking the side of fair(er) competition. And low transaction costs.

So when I‘m a Spotify, Netflix or Epic customer - as so many are - my interests as a consumer are aligned with them. They and I benefit when they can spend more on producing or acquiring the content I like and choose to pay for.
Of course, they want access to Apple's user base for free on the App Store. It's not about their customer they' calm they are fighting for against the evil empire called Apple.
It‘s about as much about end users as Apple is fighting for security and privacy (rather than their bottom line).
Any store is free to offer the same deal; it's just the cost of doing that makes it uneconomic..

There's no upside for a free app to leave Apple
Exactly - they‘re trying to rig the rules in favour of their own store offering.
It’s not a matter of whether Apple deserves it or not
Yes it is. That’s why the law has been created - the reasoning behind it ultimately is a judgement of what they deserve.
then proceeding to charge developers a fee for publishing apps on said platform.

Nor is Apple obligated to deal with any developer who refuses to access to those terms. It’s not about Stockholm syndrome. Right is right
It‘s undesirable for economy and society in the bigger picture. Apple‘s App Store acts as an intermediary between tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of business users/developers and consumers/end users.

High intermediary costs are undesirable in almost all economic markets - especially when coupled with a lack of competition in the underlying infrastructure (mobile OS) and/or high barriers for consumers to switch (platforms). Just as high credit card merchant costs are undesirable (which, again, the EU has brought down through regulation substantially).

Likewise, the level of control a small handful of companies have over what digital content people get (or sometimes can get) is undesirable.

👉🏻 Given their gatekeeping power, Apple‘s right to do (and set prices) as they please should be restricted if not stripped from them.

By law, by regulatory action, by issuing fines, if necessary.
And I fully support the E.U. in doing so (even though I‘m often very critical of it).

The first step the EU needs to do is be upfront about why they are implementing the DMA, which is really a glorified form of protectionism and an admission they are unable to compete with the major US tech giants.
Ensuring markets are competitive markets isn‘t protectionism.

The new rule basically states Apple have to provide the App Store on terms decided by the EU
Not much, no (except fair general terms if access).

The law much rather states that it should not be the only software installation store/method on systems like iOS.
I find it funny that even as the EU is pushing for Apple to open up, my country is trialing a more closed version of Android
Some peope, governments and sometimes societies really like to feel protected (and governed) by the iron fists of an omnipotent Big Brother.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
  • Haha
Reactions: I7guy and iOS Geek
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.