6 ms·

I am not a lawyer and not interested in reading hundreds of pages to figure out whether this is already non-compliant with the DMA, but it is clearly non-compli

I am not a lawyer and not interested in reading hundreds of pages to figure out whether this is already non-compliant with the DMA, but it is clearly non-compliant with its intention, so I trust it will be fixed.

londons_explore 3y ago
Luckily laws in the EU are mostly enforced by the intention of the law, not the exact wording. Therefore I'm fairly confident that they will be found noncompliant. That might take many years though, allowing Apple a few more years profits.
- jedimind 3y ago
  the noncompliance needs to be fixed before the deadline
- exe34 3y ago
  The fines should cover all the profits. I.e. seize the ill-gotten gains.
  - andersa 3y ago
    Fines should exceed all revenue derived from illegal activity, not just profit.
threeseed 3y ago
Courts in EU and US have all agreed that Apple is well within its rights to charge a license fee for use of their technologies. No different to companies like Epic or OpenAI. And I would have doubts that any regulator would want to get into the business of deciding what is a fair percentage to charge for an SDk or API.
- bombcar 3y ago
  This is what it comes down to, at the root. Apple made a decision early on to "give away" the ability to write and distribute (the $100 fee is nothing) apps for their store, and only take payment from payment received. So you have tons of free apps that just exist on Apple's code and infrastructure, with no cost to the companies.
  - shaan7 3y ago
    Yes, if the developers want to use Apple's App Store, they should pay for it, that is not the problem. The problem is that developers are forced to use Apple's App Store instead of another distribution platform. But now Apple is saying "Its okay if you want to use another distribution platform, but you still need to pay us". Why is that okay? (And no, an iPhone itself is not Apple's platform, once the user buys the phone, its their platform).
    - kj99 3y ago
      Once the user buys the phone, they own the physical device, but that’s not all they are receiving. They also receive software and services. They don’t own those - they have a license for them.
      - merlindru 3y ago
        Right, but the software and services prevent you from using the physical device however you want
        kj99 3y ago
        No they don’t. You can do whatever you like with the physical device.
        e44858 3y ago
        How? The bootloader is locked, so it will only run Apple-approved software.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  ...courts in the EU have already ruled on this new law before it has actually taken effect?
- andersa 3y ago
  The fee is paid by the user when they buy the phone. No additional cost to Apple exists because the user downloaded an app that I wrote from my website/store. Thus, Apple should not be paid for it. That's really simple - we've been doing this model for general purpose computers for decades already.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    Just as Unity has a legal ability to charge a fee for a game engine, Apple has a legal ability to charge for the Swift programming language along with the rest of the SDK. It sucks because Apple is hiding behind intellectual property rights to protect its ability to tax the app economy.
    - trumpeta 3y ago
      You can choose a different game engine or write your own. You can not write an app for iOS without Apple SDK
      - spacebanana7 3y ago
        Market power doesn't nullify IP rights. Disney could allows 3rd party cafes in Disneyland, mandate the use of Disney logos on all products, and charge a $2 royalty of every product sold with a Disney logo. It's a dick move but shifts the legal argument from one of monopoly / gatekeeper status to one of intellectual property rights, the latter being much more business friendly and entrenched in international agreements.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    a) Nobody knows other than Apple about whether the cost of building the SDKs etc are included in the price of the iPhone. So making definitive statements about their being no additional cost makes no sense. b) Microsoft and Apple both charge for developer programs and in the past it used to be significantly higher than today. So there is a precedent for this.
    - 3y ago
- baobun 3y ago
  Not true. Replace "technologies" with "services and infrastructure" and you're close. The DMA says that users should be able to choose other service- and infrastructure providers than Apple. Nobody's giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every software install on a Dell PC, though I'm sure they'd love that.
  - plussed_reader 3y ago
    "Nobody's giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every software install..." Isn't that the nature of the OEM agreements they put in place with each other to package their OS?
    - baobun 3y ago
      "For every software install" is very different from "for some preinstalled or promoted software".
- manojlds 3y ago
  Is Apple being paid when I install a DMG?
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  > Courts in EU I see the Netherlands case on third party PSPs for dating apps, and it was in the scope of apps downloaded and managed within the AppStore. Do you see any other case ruled in the EU on this subject ?
- matwood 3y ago
  Agreed. This is a licensing issue that has far reaching impact if addressed. As long as licensing software is a thing, Apple is well within its right to charge. And to your point, a judge in one of the recent cases even said they were not inclined to tell Apple how much to charge in their business.

londons_explore 3y ago

Luckily laws in the EU are mostly enforced by the intention of the law, not the exact wording. Therefore I'm fairly confident that they will be found noncompliant. That might take many years though, allowing Apple a few more years profits.

jedimind 3y ago
the noncompliance needs to be fixed before the deadline
exe34 3y ago
The fines should cover all the profits. I.e. seize the ill-gotten gains.
- andersa 3y ago
  Fines should exceed all revenue derived from illegal activity, not just profit.

threeseed 3y ago

Courts in EU and US have all agreed that Apple is well within its rights to charge a license fee for use of their technologies. No different to companies like Epic or OpenAI. And I would have doubts that any regulator would want to get into the business of deciding what is a fair percentage to charge for an SDk or API.

bombcar 3y ago
This is what it comes down to, at the root. Apple made a decision early on to "give away" the ability to write and distribute (the $100 fee is nothing) apps for their store, and only take payment from payment received. So you have tons of free apps that just exist on Apple's code and infrastructure, with no cost to the companies.
- shaan7 3y ago
  Yes, if the developers want to use Apple's App Store, they should pay for it, that is not the problem. The problem is that developers are forced to use Apple's App Store instead of another distribution platform. But now Apple is saying "Its okay if you want to use another distribution platform, but you still need to pay us". Why is that okay? (And no, an iPhone itself is not Apple's platform, once the user buys the phone, its their platform).
  - kj99 3y ago
    Once the user buys the phone, they own the physical device, but that’s not all they are receiving. They also receive software and services. They don’t own those - they have a license for them.
    - merlindru 3y ago
      Right, but the software and services prevent you from using the physical device however you want
      - kj99 3y ago
        No they don’t. You can do whatever you like with the physical device.
        e44858 3y ago
        How? The bootloader is locked, so it will only run Apple-approved software.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
...courts in the EU have already ruled on this new law before it has actually taken effect?
andersa 3y ago
The fee is paid by the user when they buy the phone. No additional cost to Apple exists because the user downloaded an app that I wrote from my website/store. Thus, Apple should not be paid for it. That's really simple - we've been doing this model for general purpose computers for decades already.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Just as Unity has a legal ability to charge a fee for a game engine, Apple has a legal ability to charge for the Swift programming language along with the rest of the SDK. It sucks because Apple is hiding behind intellectual property rights to protect its ability to tax the app economy.
  - trumpeta 3y ago
    You can choose a different game engine or write your own. You can not write an app for iOS without Apple SDK
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      Market power doesn't nullify IP rights. Disney could allows 3rd party cafes in Disneyland, mandate the use of Disney logos on all products, and charge a $2 royalty of every product sold with a Disney logo. It's a dick move but shifts the legal argument from one of monopoly / gatekeeper status to one of intellectual property rights, the latter being much more business friendly and entrenched in international agreements.
- threeseed 3y ago
  a) Nobody knows other than Apple about whether the cost of building the SDKs etc are included in the price of the iPhone. So making definitive statements about their being no additional cost makes no sense. b) Microsoft and Apple both charge for developer programs and in the past it used to be significantly higher than today. So there is a precedent for this.
  - 3y ago
baobun 3y ago
Not true. Replace "technologies" with "services and infrastructure" and you're close. The DMA says that users should be able to choose other service- and infrastructure providers than Apple. Nobody's giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every software install on a Dell PC, though I'm sure they'd love that.
- plussed_reader 3y ago
  "Nobody's giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every software install..." Isn't that the nature of the OEM agreements they put in place with each other to package their OS?
  - baobun 3y ago
    "For every software install" is very different from "for some preinstalled or promoted software".
manojlds 3y ago
Is Apple being paid when I install a DMG?
makeitdouble 3y ago
> Courts in EU I see the Netherlands case on third party PSPs for dating apps, and it was in the scope of apps downloaded and managed within the AppStore. Do you see any other case ruled in the EU on this subject ?
matwood 3y ago
Agreed. This is a licensing issue that has far reaching impact if addressed. As long as licensing software is a thing, Apple is well within its right to charge. And to your point, a judge in one of the recent cases even said they were not inclined to tell Apple how much to charge in their business.