8 ms·

The best part is: the EU demands Apple do all the necessary R&D, including an indefinite liability of API maintenance, at no cost to developers.

cyberax 1y ago
Ah, so Apple is not selling iPhones but it just gives them out for free?
- shuckles 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - cyberax 1y ago
    Look in the mirror. Apple makes money by selling devices. With giant profit margins, at that. So why should they be able to charge developers in addition to consumers?
    - coldtea 1y ago
      Because selling devices is orthogonal to maintaining a marketplace and dozens of APIs for third parties to use, and the latter can be charged for as well.
      - ksec 1y ago
        If EU doesn't demand for those API to be free, may be Apple could just have terms and cost for those API to be charged? Basically like Lightning adoptor where Apple collects dollars on accessories sold. I agree on both side some money needs to be exchanged in terms of features and Apple cant have it all to themselves. But currently it doesn't seems both side is listening and no middle ground. One side wants it all for free, the other side dont want their money and wants to keep everything themselves.
        shuckles 1y ago
        Apple proposed something like this with their "Core Technology Fee" which the EU commissioners were upset about. They literally do not want to let Apple directly monetize the R&D it takes to produce an application platform.
        ksec 1y ago
        I think there is a different in Core Technology Fee and let say Apple Translation Software Fees. One is too broad while another one is specific. Apple could theoretically give away that translation software as bundle of AirPod. And see that software for a cost to other user or third party.
        cyberax 1y ago
        Yeah, because this fee was crazy unreasonable (50 cents per app download).
        shuckles 1y ago
        Who are you to say what a reasonable price is for Apple’s intellectual property?
        cyberax 1y ago
        For developers? $0.0 for app publishing. Bandwidth cost for download. We can use AWS egress fees as guidance. Let's see... How much should Apple pay to the European Union to be allowed to sell devices there? I say 50% of gross income?
        shuckles 1y ago
        If we’re posting uneconomic nonsense like it’s Reddit, might as well go big and propose a 99% tax on gross income.
        cyberax 1y ago
    - shuckles 1y ago
      The iPhone Pro Max retails for as much as the Samsung Galaxy Ultra, and only one of the two OEMs builds the application platform used by all its developers. What are these "giant profit margins" you're referring to?
      - cyberax 1y ago
        Apple SEC report 2023, Q3: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019324000005/a8-kex991q1202412302023.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193240... Net sales: $119575 billion, net income $33916. Margin: 28%
        shuckles 1y ago
        Sounds like they have pretty bad margins!
    - Fwirt 1y ago
      Other device manufacturers ship hardware built on pre-existing software with some customizations, often using off-the-shelf drivers and software components. Apple is not only selling you a device, they’re selling you an OS and a quite decent software package including options that compete with other paid software offerings.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        And? Apple also benefitted from third-party developers writing software for its platform. Remember the "there's an app for that" ads? I think developers deserve to be treated fairly by Apple, not exploited four different ways. Because to develop for Apple you need: 1. Buy Apple hardware, because Apple doesn't provide cross-platform development tools (unlike Android or even Microsoft). 2. Pay $100 a year just to be able to publish the software. 3. Pay 30% of the app income to Apple (this changed only recently). 4. Have to endure odious restrictions imposed only because Apple wants to keep control of its platform.
        shuckles 1y ago
        > Pay 30% of the app income to Apple (this changed only recently). This is among the biggest fictions of this crazed argument. Spotify, the company that whines about Apple the most, pays Apple $0 (sorry, $99) for building the entire market for consumer mobile internet upon which their business depends.
        guillego 1y ago
        How much does Apple pay every networking equipment manufacturer, ISP or carrier upon which its market depends on? Last time I checked Apple devices don't operate on an Apple-exclusive worldwide mobile internet network.
        shuckles 1y ago
        Apple users pay carriers so much money that for half a decade there was substantial competition to be the exclusive carrier for iPhone and even still carriers will pay Apple users to become their customers through device subsidies.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter who or what it's about. Please take care to observe the guidelines if you want to participate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
TheDong 1y ago
Garmin pays apple already for a developer license to have an app to pair garmin watches.... and yet 90% of the features of the apple watch simply cannot be implemented for a garmin watch, no matter how much they pay, because those APIs are private to apple watch. Yes, apple did the R&D to figure out how to let their watch filter notifications by app, and it must have cost them so much to be able to filter notifications that it has to be locked into their watch. That's not them being intentionally anti-competitive, it's just R&D costs, sure, I'm sure it cost a ton to make that private API.
- shuckles 1y ago
  Yes, the $99/yr Garmin pays covers the 40 minutes of labor it would take annually for an Apple engineer to support this I'm sure.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    The API already exists, they just don't let other people use it because they're greedy. There's no additional maintenance burden.
    - lucketone 1y ago
      Technically cost is not zero. 1. Api designed for internal use could take shortcuts and let’s say use secrets that are and should be internal, or run things as root or something. 2. Proper API maintenance includes at least documentation and some kind of update path/schedule. Internally it’s simpler. (E.g. you must be sure not to leak secret stuff in docs) But in the end I agree with the notion that these changes for Apple are not a huge burden. (Existing behaviour is anticompetitive)
      - const_cast 1y ago
        I agree, but IMO they should already have this done if the API is properly designed. It might not be, but if so they should change it anyway.
  - 1y ago
rickdeckard 1y ago
No, the EU demands that features implemented in the OS to be used by Apple accessories must be made equally available to competing accessory vendors. This prevents Apple the platform provider and gatekeeper from giving preferential treatment to Apple the Smartwatch/Headphones/Payment/Entertainment provider
bigyabai 1y ago
Given that Apple already maintains a comprehensive entitlement system[0] they charge EU developers[1] to use, I don't see how that's an issue. Apple's work amounts to swapping out a .plist file, they could be compliant in 10 minutes with an OTA update. If they wanted. [0] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en... [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/
numpad0 1y ago
Which is what companies like Intel had done for ATX, USB, Thunderbolt, ... They were never required to, but they've done it, and they made money on it. What Apple do slightly differently is that they half-ass the standardization, and then chuck it in the trash. Amounts of efforts spent is within the ballpark.

cyberax 1y ago

Ah, so Apple is not selling iPhones but it just gives them out for free?

shuckles 1y ago
[flagged]
- cyberax 1y ago
  Look in the mirror. Apple makes money by selling devices. With giant profit margins, at that. So why should they be able to charge developers in addition to consumers?
  - coldtea 1y ago
    Because selling devices is orthogonal to maintaining a marketplace and dozens of APIs for third parties to use, and the latter can be charged for as well.
    - ksec 1y ago
      If EU doesn't demand for those API to be free, may be Apple could just have terms and cost for those API to be charged? Basically like Lightning adoptor where Apple collects dollars on accessories sold. I agree on both side some money needs to be exchanged in terms of features and Apple cant have it all to themselves. But currently it doesn't seems both side is listening and no middle ground. One side wants it all for free, the other side dont want their money and wants to keep everything themselves.
      - shuckles 1y ago
        Apple proposed something like this with their "Core Technology Fee" which the EU commissioners were upset about. They literally do not want to let Apple directly monetize the R&D it takes to produce an application platform.
        ksec 1y ago
        I think there is a different in Core Technology Fee and let say Apple Translation Software Fees. One is too broad while another one is specific. Apple could theoretically give away that translation software as bundle of AirPod. And see that software for a cost to other user or third party.
        cyberax 1y ago
        Yeah, because this fee was crazy unreasonable (50 cents per app download).
        shuckles 1y ago
        Who are you to say what a reasonable price is for Apple’s intellectual property?
        cyberax 1y ago
        For developers? $0.0 for app publishing. Bandwidth cost for download. We can use AWS egress fees as guidance. Let's see... How much should Apple pay to the European Union to be allowed to sell devices there? I say 50% of gross income?
        shuckles 1y ago
        If we’re posting uneconomic nonsense like it’s Reddit, might as well go big and propose a 99% tax on gross income.
        cyberax 1y ago
  - shuckles 1y ago
    The iPhone Pro Max retails for as much as the Samsung Galaxy Ultra, and only one of the two OEMs builds the application platform used by all its developers. What are these "giant profit margins" you're referring to?
    - cyberax 1y ago
      Apple SEC report 2023, Q3: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019324000005/a8-kex991q1202412302023.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193240... Net sales: $119575 billion, net income $33916. Margin: 28%
      - shuckles 1y ago
        Sounds like they have pretty bad margins!
  - Fwirt 1y ago
    Other device manufacturers ship hardware built on pre-existing software with some customizations, often using off-the-shelf drivers and software components. Apple is not only selling you a device, they’re selling you an OS and a quite decent software package including options that compete with other paid software offerings.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      And? Apple also benefitted from third-party developers writing software for its platform. Remember the "there's an app for that" ads? I think developers deserve to be treated fairly by Apple, not exploited four different ways. Because to develop for Apple you need: 1. Buy Apple hardware, because Apple doesn't provide cross-platform development tools (unlike Android or even Microsoft). 2. Pay $100 a year just to be able to publish the software. 3. Pay 30% of the app income to Apple (this changed only recently). 4. Have to endure odious restrictions imposed only because Apple wants to keep control of its platform.
      - shuckles 1y ago
        > Pay 30% of the app income to Apple (this changed only recently). This is among the biggest fictions of this crazed argument. Spotify, the company that whines about Apple the most, pays Apple $0 (sorry, $99) for building the entire market for consumer mobile internet upon which their business depends.
        guillego 1y ago
        How much does Apple pay every networking equipment manufacturer, ISP or carrier upon which its market depends on? Last time I checked Apple devices don't operate on an Apple-exclusive worldwide mobile internet network.
        shuckles 1y ago
        Apple users pay carriers so much money that for half a decade there was substantial competition to be the exclusive carrier for iPhone and even still carriers will pay Apple users to become their customers through device subsidies.
- tomhow 1y ago
  You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter who or what it's about. Please take care to observe the guidelines if you want to participate here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

TheDong 1y ago

Garmin pays apple already for a developer license to have an app to pair garmin watches.... and yet 90% of the features of the apple watch simply cannot be implemented for a garmin watch, no matter how much they pay, because those APIs are private to apple watch. Yes, apple did the R&D to figure out how to let their watch filter notifications by app, and it must have cost them so much to be able to filter notifications that it has to be locked into their watch. That's not them being intentionally anti-competitive, it's just R&D costs, sure, I'm sure it cost a ton to make that private API.

shuckles 1y ago
Yes, the $99/yr Garmin pays covers the 40 minutes of labor it would take annually for an Apple engineer to support this I'm sure.
- const_cast 1y ago
  The API already exists, they just don't let other people use it because they're greedy. There's no additional maintenance burden.
  - lucketone 1y ago
    Technically cost is not zero. 1. Api designed for internal use could take shortcuts and let’s say use secrets that are and should be internal, or run things as root or something. 2. Proper API maintenance includes at least documentation and some kind of update path/schedule. Internally it’s simpler. (E.g. you must be sure not to leak secret stuff in docs) But in the end I agree with the notion that these changes for Apple are not a huge burden. (Existing behaviour is anticompetitive)
    - const_cast 1y ago
      I agree, but IMO they should already have this done if the API is properly designed. It might not be, but if so they should change it anyway.
- 1y ago

rickdeckard 1y ago

No, the EU demands that features implemented in the OS to be used by Apple accessories must be made equally available to competing accessory vendors. This prevents Apple the platform provider and gatekeeper from giving preferential treatment to Apple the Smartwatch/Headphones/Payment/Entertainment provider

bigyabai 1y ago

Given that Apple already maintains a comprehensive entitlement system[0] they charge EU developers[1] to use, I don't see how that's an issue. Apple's work amounts to swapping out a .plist file, they could be compliant in 10 minutes with an OTA update. If they wanted. [0] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en... [1] https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/

numpad0 1y ago

Which is what companies like Intel had done for ATX, USB, Thunderbolt, ... They were never required to, but they've done it, and they made money on it. What Apple do slightly differently is that they half-ass the standardization, and then chuck it in the trash. Amounts of efforts spent is within the ballpark.