5 ms·

Looks like Apple is forcing the question: Will the EU compel Apple to give away or license their software, apis, and technology at some price other than Apple s

Looks like Apple is forcing the question: Will the EU compel Apple to give away or license their software, apis, and technology at some price other than Apple sets? If the EU takes that position, I’d have to think the US and other governments would start to look at EU IP the same way. Something to be regulated and taken at a price that local government prefers.

goosedragons 2y ago
Is it not already paid for by the purchase of device by consumers and developer fees? Why is Apple entitled to triple dip?
- audunw 2y ago
  You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features. There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for. The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
  - goosedragons 2y ago
    Why is macOS free then? Why was Lion paid? Why was iPhone OS 2 free for iPhones when there was no App Store revenue?
    - twoodfin 2y ago
      Not really related to this argument, but for a while in that era Apple was under the impression that Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules demanded that they charge for software enabling new features of existing products. So various software upgrades came with more or less trivial price tags. It didn’t last long; I guess some combination of lawyers, accountants, and regulators clarified the matter.
      - mejutoco 2y ago
        The paid upgrade to be able to add events to the calendar in iOS was something like 20-25€ IIRC for my ipod touch first generation. I did not get it. I thought it was a rip off. It was free for iphones though.
    - olliej 2y ago
      You know macOS used to be a purchase right? That didn’t end until Apple had the commission revenue.
      - goosedragons 2y ago
        You do know that iPhone updates were free prior to the App Store right? And that OS X still had paid updates even after the introduction Mac App Store? And that macOS didn't start being used until 10.12 well after upgrades went free? Commission revenue doesn't explain Apple's free updates nor is a requirement for them. Software updates were free for many Windows Mobile handsets despite there being no central MS owned and tithed Windows Mobile software store. EDIT: And early Mac OS releases prior to System 7 were free too!
        okanat 2y ago
        Windows updates has always been free too. Microsoft still made quite a bit money from new sales of Windows and corporate subscriptions until they switched to ad-infested model. Why Apple cannot? They have the biggest margins in hardware sales alone compared to other hardware vendors.
- barelysapient 2y ago
  Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device. If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
  - goosedragons 2y ago
    Lower revenue isn't "giving away". Under Apple's logic here it's a tiny leap that they should be entitled to 20% of all online purchases. They developed the web browser the customer used to navigate there after all. But it's not clear how an app is really different and some how acceptable to tithe. It's just obscene.
    - goodSteveramos 2y ago
      Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?
- olliej 2y ago
  Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again? This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation This would be closer to reality if Apple didn't drive hardware margins that are quite literally orders-of-magnitude larger than any comparable games console. When the Nintendo Switch launched it was shipping below-cost after accounting for shipping, whereas there has never been a modern Apple product that didn't ship with profitable hardware. So when you scrutinize the two no, they really aren't similar. Apple cannot use the same excuse that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo use.
amluto 2y ago
> give away or license their software, apis, and technology This is a strange concept, especially in historical context. Windows, for example, was always free to develop on unless you wanted to use MS’s tooling, in which case you could buy in a la carte or subscribe to MSDN. The owner of the device had a license to the technology and MS’s stack, and the developers licensed the developer tools if they chose to do so. Even on iOS, the dev tools are cheap, and the device owner holds an iOS license. And the charge for distributing software is $0 — there is no charge for distributing software. So what Apple really seems to be charging for is permission to charge money for iOS apps. And I think I’m with the EU here — Apple is gatekeeping and is charging something entirely unrelated to Apple’s costs.
- barelysapient 2y ago
  I think its fair to say that Microsoft Windows is a different product entirely. Microsoft's business model literally a monopoly (100% install base) and they were willing to make different trade offs to get there. Interestingly though, the OS cost money--not free. So to run that "free" software, you had to pay MS money for the privilege. iOS dev tools may be cheap. But that's not point. Apple has invested billions into that ecosystem. And to foster adoption, Apple's licensing model allowed for "free" software. But that was funded by the revenue collected from non-free iOS apps.
  - goodSteveramos 2y ago
    >different trade offs Different from who? What company in the 1980’s or 1990’s did what apple is doing now?
  - amluto 2y ago
    I'm not convinced. 1990s-era Windows was a sort-of monopoly -- MS had a monopoly on Windows, and Windows ran on the substantial majority of PCs, and PCs were much of the market. But users could also get a Mac or one of several Unix-ish machines or an OS/2 machine or a BeOS machine, etc. So MS's actual monopoly was on platform that developers needed to target to make software to run on Windows machines. Right now, Apple has a monopoly on the software running on iPhones and iPads and a near-but-not-complete monopoly on software running on laptops and desktops and Mac Minis. And there are plenty of users of various Android phones and even a handful of devices that are neither iOS nor Android. So what's the difference? Apple wants to take a cut of gross sales of software targeting iOS, even in cases where Apple is uninvolved in the distribution of that software, and even when that software actually targets a platform-agnostic system and that system knows how to target iOS. Microsoft did not.

goosedragons 2y ago

Is it not already paid for by the purchase of device by consumers and developer fees? Why is Apple entitled to triple dip?

audunw 2y ago
You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features. There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for. The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
- goosedragons 2y ago
  Why is macOS free then? Why was Lion paid? Why was iPhone OS 2 free for iPhones when there was no App Store revenue?
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    Not really related to this argument, but for a while in that era Apple was under the impression that Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules demanded that they charge for software enabling new features of existing products. So various software upgrades came with more or less trivial price tags. It didn’t last long; I guess some combination of lawyers, accountants, and regulators clarified the matter.
    - mejutoco 2y ago
      The paid upgrade to be able to add events to the calendar in iOS was something like 20-25€ IIRC for my ipod touch first generation. I did not get it. I thought it was a rip off. It was free for iphones though.
  - olliej 2y ago
    You know macOS used to be a purchase right? That didn’t end until Apple had the commission revenue.
    - goosedragons 2y ago
      You do know that iPhone updates were free prior to the App Store right? And that OS X still had paid updates even after the introduction Mac App Store? And that macOS didn't start being used until 10.12 well after upgrades went free? Commission revenue doesn't explain Apple's free updates nor is a requirement for them. Software updates were free for many Windows Mobile handsets despite there being no central MS owned and tithed Windows Mobile software store. EDIT: And early Mac OS releases prior to System 7 were free too!
      - okanat 2y ago
        Windows updates has always been free too. Microsoft still made quite a bit money from new sales of Windows and corporate subscriptions until they switched to ad-infested model. Why Apple cannot? They have the biggest margins in hardware sales alone compared to other hardware vendors.
barelysapient 2y ago
Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device. If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
- goosedragons 2y ago
  Lower revenue isn't "giving away". Under Apple's logic here it's a tiny leap that they should be entitled to 20% of all online purchases. They developed the web browser the customer used to navigate there after all. But it's not clear how an app is really different and some how acceptable to tithe. It's just obscene.
  - goodSteveramos 2y ago
    Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?
olliej 2y ago
Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again? This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation This would be closer to reality if Apple didn't drive hardware margins that are quite literally orders-of-magnitude larger than any comparable games console. When the Nintendo Switch launched it was shipping below-cost after accounting for shipping, whereas there has never been a modern Apple product that didn't ship with profitable hardware. So when you scrutinize the two no, they really aren't similar. Apple cannot use the same excuse that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo use.

amluto 2y ago

> give away or license their software, apis, and technology This is a strange concept, especially in historical context. Windows, for example, was always free to develop on unless you wanted to use MS’s tooling, in which case you could buy in a la carte or subscribe to MSDN. The owner of the device had a license to the technology and MS’s stack, and the developers licensed the developer tools if they chose to do so. Even on iOS, the dev tools are cheap, and the device owner holds an iOS license. And the charge for distributing software is $0 — there is no charge for distributing software. So what Apple really seems to be charging for is permission to charge money for iOS apps. And I think I’m with the EU here — Apple is gatekeeping and is charging something entirely unrelated to Apple’s costs.

barelysapient 2y ago
I think its fair to say that Microsoft Windows is a different product entirely. Microsoft's business model literally a monopoly (100% install base) and they were willing to make different trade offs to get there. Interestingly though, the OS cost money--not free. So to run that "free" software, you had to pay MS money for the privilege. iOS dev tools may be cheap. But that's not point. Apple has invested billions into that ecosystem. And to foster adoption, Apple's licensing model allowed for "free" software. But that was funded by the revenue collected from non-free iOS apps.
- goodSteveramos 2y ago
  >different trade offs Different from who? What company in the 1980’s or 1990’s did what apple is doing now?
- amluto 2y ago
  I'm not convinced. 1990s-era Windows was a sort-of monopoly -- MS had a monopoly on Windows, and Windows ran on the substantial majority of PCs, and PCs were much of the market. But users could also get a Mac or one of several Unix-ish machines or an OS/2 machine or a BeOS machine, etc. So MS's actual monopoly was on platform that developers needed to target to make software to run on Windows machines. Right now, Apple has a monopoly on the software running on iPhones and iPads and a near-but-not-complete monopoly on software running on laptops and desktops and Mac Minis. And there are plenty of users of various Android phones and even a handful of devices that are neither iOS nor Android. So what's the difference? Apple wants to take a cut of gross sales of software targeting iOS, even in cases where Apple is uninvolved in the distribution of that software, and even when that software actually targets a platform-agnostic system and that system knows how to target iOS. Microsoft did not.