[SCdF]

If I make OpenFlappyBird, and it's my little personal project, and I distribute it on OpenMarketPlace *for free*, and it's a surprise massive runaway hit in the EU, with 10,000,000 people downloading it, I now owe Apple, after making zero money myself, ~$400k, *per month* (thanks pzo for the clarification).

https://developer.apple.com/support/fee-calculator-for-apps-...

Enter "No" to digital goods selling (you are making OpenFlappyBird as a personal project, and are not charging for it!)

Enter 10,000,000 Annual installs.

Check "New Capabilities and Terms" (you are putting it on OpenMarketPlace).

----

Where did I go wrong? This is a genuine question: I am not an iOS developer, maybe I am not applying this calculator correctly to my hypothetical?

[pzo]

Your calculation is wrong its $400k per month, per year it would be $5millions. Even worse if after one year you make some bug fix update and all those 10m people update your app you will own another $5 million - and by default app store install updates automatically

[SCdF]

Holy banana on a tricycle, I didn't notice that. Updated.

[dann0]

Only if you choose the new terms. The current ones are still available to you.

I definitely don’t love all of the detail of either option.

However, why would one chose an option that would cost them so much when the other, existing option costs nothing?

[SCdF]

> However, why would one chose an option that would cost them so much when the other, existing option costs nothing?

Yes that's the point. In my scenario I was wanting to distribute this on a different app store than Apple's, which forces me to choose the new terms.

Your question there is the exact question apple expects people to ask themselves, to dissuade them from supporting other stores.

[ripdog]

The old terms lock you into the App Store, no?

[depressedpanda]

Aren't there restrictions against using GPL stuff in the App Store?

[simondotau]

> Where did I go wrong?

When you compile OpenFlappyBird for iOS, your binary includes statically linked Apple intellectual property. Just as open source developers are entitled to use copyright law to enforce GPL rules[0], Apple is entitled to set license terms for use of this intellectual property.

While many operating system developers have historically chosen to license this intellectual property at no cost, many others have not. And regardless, norms aren't laws. Apple isn't required to give away their stuff for free.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

[SCdF]

Yes, Apple can do what it wants, unless it can't because the EU tells it that it can't, lawyers courts litigation etc. I get that.

What does that have to do with being asked to pay $400k/month for a free app that you made $0 from being considered by the person I replied to as "better for developers and users in the EU."?

[simondotau]

It has everything to do with it. We don't necessarily disagree about what we think Apple should do. My argument here is that I care about the GPL being respected, which forces me to respect the fundamental principle of distributing code with coercive license terms, whether or not the coercion involves money. If Apple doesn't want to give their intellectual property away for free, they shouldn't be required to, even if it doing so is often the norm. Even if Apple had followed that norm in some other contexts in the past.

If we were discussing desktop operating systems, this is the moment where I would advocate switching to a properly Free Software (or near-Free) software ecosystem. Unfortunately there's nothing for me to advocate when it comes to smartphones; there aren't any serious recommendations to make which aren't catastrophically impractical for all but the most obsessive Richard Stallman acolyte.

[wasmitnetzen]

There is a fundamental difference you're ignoring: the GPL is not a monopoly of any sort, Apple is part of a duopoly.

[simondotau]

I’m not ignoring it. I’m saying one is great and one sucks, but they both scaffold upon the same legal principle so decry the latter at your peril.

[dns_snek]

Apple is not giving away intellectual property for free.

1. They're already charging for access to SDKs and services via their $100 annual developer fee. Quote from Apple:

> Membership includes all the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps, including access to beta software, app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more.

2. In any case, reverse engineering, modifications, and distribution of IP for the purposes of interoperability is protected under the Computer Programs Directive in the EU

[simondotau]

1. Irrelevant. You’re not receiving unlimited distribution rights with that particular purchase.

2. The directive gives end users the right to reverse engineer, modify, and make PRIVATE copies of intellectual property for the purposes of interoperability. It doesn’t create a new avenue for the redistribution of intellectual property.

[dns_snek]

I get it, so they get to make up new fees that previously didn't exist and claim they're a reasonable way to comply. If they get accused of not having enough toilets at the office, they can simply build one and charge $10000 per use to "cover operating expenses", brilliant! That's what this is.

Can you imagine if AMD or Intel tried to charge a fee to every program written using their instruction set? How about your web browser or keyboard manufacturer wanting a cut of your revenue? Is that ridiculous enough yet? Apple derives almost the entirety of their value from their app ecosystem, so don't act like giving developers access to development tools used to be charity before this new fee came along. Conveniently it only affects one side of this monopolistic fence, too.

Above all, there's nothing being distributed, the tools and SDKs certainly aren't, and APIs aren't protected IP, courts have already settled that.

[waffleiron]

When you put a sticker on your car, it interfaces with intellectual property of the car manufacturer. It would be absurd if you had to pay BMW each time you modify your car, or say play a song over the integrated radio because that’s only possible due to their IP.

[simondotau]

Yes, that would be absurd. It’s also not even remotely analogous to redistributing intellectual property.

[Doxin]

They are however required by law to allow other app stores to function. This new licensing cost is a bald faced attempt to make other app stores nonviable. I'd be highly surprised if the EU is okay with that.

[GlumWoodpecker]

In my view, they are making alternative app stores way more attractive to FLOSS apps, because they will incur no fees from Apple, and the creators won't have to set up an NPO.

Edit: Seems I misunderstood, I just re-read the relevant section:

>iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.

The fact that they are charging money for apps installed from non-App Store sources is ludicrous to me, if they aren't running the store, then they don't get to collect fees on it, imo.

[sebstefan]

It's still a rug pull under people who wouldn't have developed for Apple software had they known there would have been installation fees later years down the line

[dann0]

I’d agree, but the developer in this example could still use the iOS App Store for free using the current terms

[sunnybeetroot]

That’s why it’s opt in, you’re being informed upfront there will be installation fees.

[saagarjha]

Apple does not statically link their code into your app.