And it’s more complicated than that. They where allegedly providing unfair tax benefits to Apple, something they should be required to give to all companies.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would make a different point. If iPhones allowed side-loading, there would be less harm for the user when governments make laws that block VPN apps.
You’re making the case that technically side loading is a subset of loading an app for the App Store.
I’m making the case that apple has to allow side loading, alternative stores is misappropriation of apples IP as this idea is not apples. It’s about apples control and apples oversight. Not eu control and decentralized oversight.
Additionally there is no PR issue, it’s a fake issue.
Third if there was a real technical challenge apple would have flipped a bit and done. Instead there was a protracted beta process insinuating there was more to this than bit flipping.
Fourth, reloading is an implication of a Wild West. Using the term for a store controlled by an enterprise certificate is just disingenuous.
Fifth, apple put all of this in to comply with the DMA. Or are you saying thy could have gotten away with just giving away the App Store?
That’s the point though. Uncontrolled sideloading would turn the iPhone into a cesspool. Something apple is trying to avoid. I don’t believe any government wants the iPhone to be used for purposes of sedition.
Got it. So maybe governments should then mandate that every smartphone can only have one app store controlled by a central entity. Never thought of Android users as potential terrorist 🤨.
1:
No I’m making the case that Side loading is a parallel way to install/load applications to your device next to the AppStore. They are on the exact same level. It’s not a subset and you’re not loading an app for the AppStore.
It’s the exact same idea as how you sideload software on a Mac without using the AppStore.
Uh hi. Sure about that pr part?
Third:
Apple have had this functionality since at least ios14. With the ability to deploy apps not controlled by Apple and side loaded.
Distribute Managed Apps to Apple devices
Depending on your organization, you may need to control how apps that are distributed to your users connect to internal resources.
support.apple.com
Fourth:
Side loading doesn’t implicate the Wild West. The store isn’t controlled by a enterprise certifikat. The have their own certification, the only one who need a device certificate is the user in order to allow them to install apps unrelated to the AppStore or Apple.
And it’s a simple limitation as iOS devices can’t install apps unless they have the right profile and certificate association.
Fifth:
They could have gotten away by just nolonger requiring an Apple provided certificate to install apps, in the exact same way they implement it on MacOS or MDM devices.
Essentially flicking a switch as all the necessary code is already there since half a decade and used by anyone who wants to install apps not from the AppStore. Heck you can do it now but being limited to about 3 apps with a validation of 7 days.
That’s how altstore did it the 5 years before.
It would turn it to the cesspool of the macOS Reality. And we all love it as a great system. So let’s make iOS great again
Last edited:
Analogy fails.
It's not. Apple can charge whatever fee they like for their App Store. They do not have to give it away for free.
They just have to allow alternative stores - and they can't use it to discriminate against third-parties - or prevent them from interacting with consumers.
Your analogies fail time and again ...and again.
- Sam's club's brands don't have 95% or more market share with Costco's equivalent.
- Walmart aren’t prohibiting third-party products' suppliers from selling directly to customers
- Walmart aren’t prohibiting third-party products' suppliers from communicating directly to customers
- It doesn’t cost a consumer hundreds of Euro to change from Walmart to Costco tomorrow
Great!
So let's have free markets for mobile phone applications. Without a developer being forced to fork over 30% commission to their biggest competitors - or else be unable to communicate and market to consumers at their preferred point of interaction (the app).
Of course they do, when you look at Apple's developer terms and cnsider how Apple competes with Spotify, Epic and other developers' products.
Fully Agree. 👍
Functioning, free markets would not increase hundred- or thousandfold in sales transactions and sales volume over 15 years of time - without those economies of scale ever yielding lower commission pricing for the biggest suppliers/manufacturers.
👉🏻 It clearly shows that the market for iOS applications - as regulated by Apple - is not functioning properly as a free market.
Apple has chosen to do so.
They could easily charge every hosted app a download fee or something.
You know that most of the relevant apps for those alternative manufacturers' phones are only available on Google Play - and that commercial developers have to sell through Google Play to stay relevant - which is why it's a duopoly.
You also know that consumers are (softly) locked into an ecosystem of the two and won't/can't switch overnight.
Again - MacOS, with roughly 100 million active users isn't anywhere close to an attractive market for malware when windows has 1.5 billion users. iOS has approximately 1.4 billion users, entirely different risk profile. AND I would argue MacOS is nowhere near as secure as iPhone. I can (currently) tell my 72 year old dad "you can download just about anything for the iPhone and it'll be safe - no need to check with me first" I can't say that about his Mac.
You do realize all of iOS, not just the AppStore, is Apple's IP. And it appears the EU is saying Apple cannot charge developers who use that IP to build apps, which is an incredibly radical stance. They're compelling a private company to give away its property (and, presumably maintain that property) to others for free.
Wrong.
I’m baffled how you can even seriously make this claim? 🤷♀️
👉🏻 They absolutely can charge them - and they do (developer subscription).
I also don‘t see what’s preventing them from charging a download fee on their store.
Or (and here I agree with Apple) a Core Technology Fee - it just remains to be seen if the EU allows them to charge such fee to unfairly steer developers towards their own App Store and remaining on „legacy“ terms.
The gatekeeper is however restricted from locking out - or „paywalling“ access to operating system features for hardware or services that it competes with.
Last edited:
It does not have to be a fully free market, only close enough and lawful.
It’s not apples fault that Microsoft pulled the plug on windows phones.
Similar to being soft locked to your house that you have a mortgage on? There is no lock in soft or otherwise.
The mortgage, the furniture you can't take with you (paid apps), the car that needs to stay in the driveway (nonstandard charger, fixed now), the letters that need to be shredded because you cannot take them with you (iMessages), the family dog that needs to be put down due to the move (photo streams, shared icloud storage, etc).
You won't see the soft lock if you cover your eyes and pretend it's not there.
Speaking of regulated markets:
The market for iOS applications is arguably more regulated by Apple - than by the DMA.
More strictly, more complicated, more convoluted
„Music Streaming Services Entitlement (EEA)“ - like what the heck!? 🤯
It‘s also more highly taxed in „sales tax“ (commission) by Apple - than by European countries‘ VAT.
For all but small developers, that only make for a small minority of sales volume.
You obviously support Apple‘s regulation and/or their right to regulate and „tax“ market participants.
And you seem to prefer a profit-seeking billion dollar company doing it over (somewhat) democratically elected governments.
Your opinion isn’t universally shared though.
And the market does not function as a free market (particularly with regards to transaction costs).
The DMA restores - or rather introduces - a balancing factor to Apple‘s regulating and charging „tax“.
And makes the market a little bit more free - and competitive.
The DMA leaves the market close enough to free - and it’s lawful.
The E.U. Goes Too Far
Recent E.U. regulatory decisions cross the line from market correction to property theft; if the E.U. continues down this path they are likely to see fewer new features and no new companies.
stratechery.com
We will see if Ben Thompson's predictions come true in time or not.
Because Apple has, for a very long time, said that the 15/30% includes the cost of licensing their IP. They don’t say that about the $99 developer fee. Just because you want the $99 to cover the licensing doesn’t mean that it does. I want my $129 Amazon Prime fee to cover ad-free Prime Video, it doesn’t, I have to pay an additional $60 a year for that.
And the EU is absolutely saying Apple isn’t allowed to charge for their IP. They aren’t coming out and saying it, because they probably understand how radical it is. But if you say “you have to let people sell apps that use your IP outside of your store” and “you can’t charge developers who don’t use your store” what is the other alternative? You say “charge the CTF to apps in the App Store then it’s kosher” - but then Apple is being forced to hurt the developers who play by the rules so the Spotifies and Epics of the world pay their fair share.
So either Apple is forced to give away its IP or consumers are hurt in the name of “competition”, which is what those of us who are against the DMA have been saying is going to happen.
„For a very long time“?
Since when actually? I‘d honestly be interested to know.
Can‘t remember them saying (let alone emphasising) that before thr EPIC trial and EU regulation were a thing.
While they may have spun it that way in the Epic trial (their first instance of doing it publicly to my knowledgr), I‘m calling b*llsh*t on it. It‘s also contradicted by their own paid developer terms:
„You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those regions listed on Exhibit A, Section 1 to this Schedule 2, subject to change; and (ii) Your commissionaire for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users located in those regions…
(…)
For sales of Licensed Applications to End-Users, Apple shall be entitled to a commission equal to thirty percent (30%) of all prices payable by each End-User. Solely for auto-renewing subscription purchases…“
👉🏻 That‘s it: a commission “for sales“ paid to a commissionaire responsible for „marketing and delivery“.
There are countless apps that are free and only pay the $99 developer fee as a cost of „licensing Apple‘s IP“. Uber is a prime example, particularly how they’re making much use of location services, and the notification framework - complicated and expensive (to develop and run) stuff.
Whereas Spotify are, by and large, use play audio and show a few basic interface elements - comparatively very simple and commoditised stuff.
That is unjustified differentiation.
Nonsense.
They‘re somewhat limiting their being allowed to charge and differentiate unjustifiedly and unfairly.
But they‘re certainly not preventing it.
That doesn’t mean Apple can‘t charge for its IP.
They aren’t saying they have to let developers develop for free.
They can’t, in fact - they have to subsribe to the developer subscription.
I‘ve said it often:
Charge a fair developer fee - that‘s what they‘ve been doing forever!
Charge a core technology fee - just one that doesn‘t preference your own store and force developers into staying on legacy terms.
Last edited:
👉🏻 So what is the $99 developer fee for and what does it include?
👉🏻 Does Uber make use of Apple‘s IP in developing their app and providing their service to iOS users?
👉🏻 Does Uber pay for use of Apple‘s IP?
👉🏻 If so, how do they compensate Apple for use of their IP? How are they paying for it?
Last edited:
You won’t see soft lock if it’s not there either. Sunk costs are not soft lock.
Apple has a helpful website that explains that. Here's a screenshot. Note, I don't see "license to use Apple's Intellectual Property" listed as a benefit.
Of course they use Apple's IP. And Apple does not (currently) charge free apps that provide real-world goods and services for use of their IP. That's their right as IP owner.
They don't. Apple has determined that they license their apps for free as long as the app doesn't charge to download the app, has an in-app subscription, or charges for digital goods and services. Again, perfectly within their rights to do so. I said it a while ago in this or another similar thread - if the item sold by the app can be used on the iPhone or iPad it gets charged, if it is used in the real world, there is no charge. You don't have to like Apple's choice there, but it is there choice to make. Kinda like they don't charge the fee for non-commercial apps, or apps that are completely free.
The $99 fee includes "App distribution", which I would agree covers review, hosting, and downloads. They are providing that service to companies/individuals who pay the $99 . But that's not all the $99 pays for, per the screenshot above.
Probably not much of a difference. I don't know who makes "more" use of it, but Apple, as IP owner, gets to decide how it charges for its IP. If Apple has decided that free apps get a license for free, then they are 100% in their right to do that. If they decide that apps that are free but require a subscription to do anything require a paid license, then they are in their right to do that. If they decide that apps with blue app icons have to pay a $5,000,000 licensing fee per download, it's their right to decide that. And they've made a choice that Free Apps don't pay, Paid Apps do pay, and Free Apps with digital goods also pay.
I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it. As @Abazigal noted in his quote above, Ben Thompson would prefer they give it away for apps that don't use the App Store. But Thompson agrees that it is their right to decide how they charge for it. If developers don't like it, no one is forcing them to sell to iOS customers.
Unlike life's necessities that can actually kill you if you couldn't get them, an iphone is not in that list. Apple provides a service and it's up to the dev and consumer to decide if they want to avail themselves of the service. If they don't there are alternatives. Not so much for my water company or electric company. Show me one business run by a fortune 500 company that doesn't have t&c for consumers using their service. It's just disingenous to call t&c regulated.
Some supermarkets charge $10000 in slotting fees to sell their products. Is that highly taxed or do providers of a service earn the right to set the price. Don't like the price then move on.
Well "we" do.
Yep. While you prefer to have profit-seeking billion dollar companies regulated up the wazoo.
Neither is yours. That's the great thing about internet forums.
It doesn't have to.
There is no balancing factor. the DMA out and out gives away apples assets for nothing.
That's not competition. That's playing Robin Hood.
The DMA regulates a market that is now worse for consumers.
That’s pretty public knowledge.
Apple has granted exemptions. You may not like it, but it’s not your business. You can charge what you want in your own business.
See above. You don’t have to like the way apple runs its business but its their business.
We don’t know what business contracts apple and Uber have in place. Probably under nda. Apple is not required to treat every customer identically. Most for profit businesses don’t. But that doesn’t mean Uber can skirt the rules.
I think Apple would be able to remove VPN apps without a so-called ‘walled garden’. They’d simply revoke the notorisation.I wonder if Apple are ever conflicted about their walled garden directly enabling easy censoring in this way, simply from government pressure
Russia forces Apple to remove VPN apps from the App Store
Apple has caved to pressure from Russian authorities and removed a number of the best iPhone VPN apps from the App Store in the country.appleinsider.com
Do you really need to "license" anything (meaning IP) from Apple to run apps though? Serious question. Because on macOS you don't. Linking some libraries into your app is fair use as far as I know. You would have to use an open source compiler and could not use Xcode for example, but that is not a huge obstacle I think.
Any payment you might owe Apple would thus only be the result of a business contract (think terms of service) and not "intellectual property" that you need to license.
Ergo, I think, there is probably no intellectual property involved at all.
The thesis seems to be, that the cost of adopting iOS to EU regulations might at some point exceed the marginal profit that can be made from the EU market. I think this is a stretch, to say it politely. If it were true that Apple needs the extra revenue it gets from the app store to have a working business case, why does the Mac even exist? Following Thomson's logic, Apple would have canned the whole Mac business unit years ago because of bad profitability. And the EU is not even asking Apple to make iOS as open. They are free to charge what they want, as long as they are not using the fees to manipulate the competition.
The short answer to the above question: no.
Last edited: