3 ms·

Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.

by sneak 3y ago

jimbokun 3y ago
Is that a legal opinion, or a this is how the world should work opinion?
- internetter 3y ago
  Yes, it's a legal one. Under the DMA: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    The DMA absolutely allows charging money for access to a regulated platform. The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited. We'll see how that goes: > 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.
    - internetter 3y ago
      > The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited The CTF is the exact topic of discussion in the context I provided the clause
      - Kon-Peki 3y ago
        The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs. That's the distinction, and why it isn't automatically illegal. It would only be illegal if it gives Apple's App Store an unfair competitive advantage. And as you can see from the text of the DMA, in order to declare the CTF illegal, the EC has to conduct a fair, impartial, fact-based investigation that considers Apple's viewpoint. Then they produce a preliminary report which Apple is allowed to rebut. After that they can issue a final ruling, and Apple is allowed to appeal that to the court of justice. Even if the CTF is found to be illegal after all of that, Apple gets 6+ months to make changes unless the EC can prove that they were working in bad faith.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        > The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs. Since Apple already charges $99/yr for a dev account, for which the Xcode price is included, and the CTF applies even when not using the App Store... what are they charging for if not API access in the form of the dev's user's devices? That's the only thing that's left
        halostatue 3y ago
        The CTF applies when not using the App Store, because the equivalent of the CTF is baked into Apple's 30%. People asked for unbundling, and this is what Apple came up with. Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their compilers from their software vendors (the price for the HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).
- sneak 3y ago
  Well, is there a legal basis for Apple charging this fee? I'm licensed to use Xcode presently, which means I can legally produce iOS binaries without paying them. I'm legally allowed to distribute those binaries because I own the rights to them, the apps being original works (and not derived works). What, specifically, is the core technology fee for other than dissuading competition? It's not for using Xcode (I already have that now), and it's not for redistributing Apple software (iOS binaries aren't that). What technology specifically? Is it a software license? Is it for a patent license? Is it payment for a service? What is it?
  - Aloisius 3y ago
    Have you actually read the licensing terms you agreed to for Xcode and Apple SDKs? > Except as otherwise expressly set forth in Section 2.2.B., You may not distribute any Applications developed using the Apple SDKs (excluding the macOS SDK) absent entering into a separate written agreement with Apple.

Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.

by sneak 3y ago

Since when do you have to pay to use an ABI or link against system libraries? Shipping your own apps to your own customers doesn't entitle Apple to a payment.

jimbokun 3y ago

Is that a legal opinion, or a this is how the world should work opinion?

internetter 3y ago
Yes, it's a legal one. Under the DMA: The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  The DMA absolutely allows charging money for access to a regulated platform. The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited. We'll see how that goes: > 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.
  - internetter 3y ago
    > The Core Technology Fee is the only thing Apple is charging that can even remotely seem like it may be prohibited The CTF is the exact topic of discussion in the context I provided the clause
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs. That's the distinction, and why it isn't automatically illegal. It would only be illegal if it gives Apple's App Store an unfair competitive advantage. And as you can see from the text of the DMA, in order to declare the CTF illegal, the EC has to conduct a fair, impartial, fact-based investigation that considers Apple's viewpoint. Then they produce a preliminary report which Apple is allowed to rebut. After that they can issue a final ruling, and Apple is allowed to appeal that to the court of justice. Even if the CTF is found to be illegal after all of that, Apple gets 6+ months to make changes unless the EC can prove that they were working in bad faith.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        > The CTF is a platform access fee, and not a fee for interoperating with system ABIs/services/APIs. Since Apple already charges $99/yr for a dev account, for which the Xcode price is included, and the CTF applies even when not using the App Store... what are they charging for if not API access in the form of the dev's user's devices? That's the only thing that's left
        halostatue 3y ago
        The CTF applies when not using the App Store, because the equivalent of the CTF is baked into Apple's 30%. People asked for unbundling, and this is what Apple came up with. Those who are surprised that you have to pay for access to an ABI have obviously never had to pay for their compilers from their software vendors (the price for the HP-UX garbage compiler was eye wateringly high).
sneak 3y ago
Well, is there a legal basis for Apple charging this fee? I'm licensed to use Xcode presently, which means I can legally produce iOS binaries without paying them. I'm legally allowed to distribute those binaries because I own the rights to them, the apps being original works (and not derived works). What, specifically, is the core technology fee for other than dissuading competition? It's not for using Xcode (I already have that now), and it's not for redistributing Apple software (iOS binaries aren't that). What technology specifically? Is it a software license? Is it for a patent license? Is it payment for a service? What is it?
- Aloisius 3y ago
  Have you actually read the licensing terms you agreed to for Xcode and Apple SDKs? > Except as otherwise expressly set forth in Section 2.2.B., You may not distribute any Applications developed using the Apple SDKs (excluding the macOS SDK) absent entering into a separate written agreement with Apple.