[andix]

It looks like Apple found a loop hole. I don’t think this loop hole will stay open for long.

Edit: I really think that we will soon get an addendum to this law that will limit those fees. In a similar way mobile phone roaming fees got regulated.

[burnerthrow008]

In response to your edit: I doubt it.

1. Remember, the EC feels that American tech companies are unfairly stifling competition from European tech companies. They’re not going to just wholesale ban monetization of intellectual property, which is what banning the core technology fee would do—that’s not a useful precedent if you’re trying to boost the euro tech scene.

2. It really feels like most of the arguments against Apple’s DMA compliance plan come from a place of “I hate Apple, what alternative reality can I imagine in which they make no money?” If Apple’s profits are regulated out of existence in Europe, they’re simply going to stop offering products for the European market. Problem solved, I guess?

But like another commenter wrote, be careful what you wish for. I don’t think that’s actually what devs want, mainly because today iOS is the self-selected, lucrative market for independent software. That’s where the customers are who will pay you for Apps. That’s why nobody cares that Google charges just as much as Apple.

[andix]

What the EC wants is more or less what you get with Windows, macOS or Android. Being able to install apps from any source and being able to buy apps from any app store/vendor without them being forced to pay commission/fees to Apple.

It doesn't have any connection to "monetization of intellectual property", just look at Windows, Android, macOS, and all other operating systems.

iOS can stay closed source, Apple can keep selling it to customers (on their iPhones), Apple might even stop providing SDKs at all and stop allowing third party apps on their phones. But they shouldn't be able to be a "gate keeper" and charge commission to third parties releasing apps/content on their platform. Because this is killing competition and free markets.

I understand there are implications for opening iOS to other app stores.

[burnerthrow008]

> What the EC wants is more or less what you get with Windows, macOS or Android.

That’s the what not the why. The why is that they want a tech industry in Europe that’s worthy of the term.

> It doesn't have any connection to "monetization of intellectual property", just look at Windows, Android, macOS, and all other operating systems.

Yes, look at them. And don’t stop there. Look at game consoles and the Epic store, for that matter. Companies license their intellectual property to other companies all the time. To use VSCode for commercial windows development, you must pay the Microsoft tax. You must pay to use Epic’s game engine commercially. So why can’t Apple charge to use their SDK too?

The point is that Europe isn’t going to have much of a tech industry if the EC sets the precedent that you can’t charge money for IP.

> But they shouldn't be able to be a "gate keeper" and charge commission to third parties releasing apps/content on their platform.

Ok, so now we’re back to “not allowed to charge for their IP”. Which is contrary to the goal of having a European tech industry.

But, are you even reading what you’re writing? You’d be ok with Apple just completely shutting out 3rd party apps, but you’re not ok with them allowing 3rd parties to license certain tech?

[andix]

Apple does not charge for "using their SDK". They charge for installing (commercial) applications to devices they produce and sell.

Even if I build an application completely without the Apple SDK, just with open source software, I can't sell it to people without paying the "Apple tax".

Your example VS Code is not related to that at all, because Microsoft doesn't prevent installing applications built with other tools.

Same with the Epic game engine. Windows/Android/etc don't force you to use the Epic game engine for all games built on their platform. You can use any other technology of your choice.

What Apple is doing right now is comparable to a car manufacturer that would only allow you filling up your tank at their own gas stations. For +30% the market price. And a lot of countries would not allow this kind of anti-competitive behaviour.

In the EU for example all car manufacturers need to provide documentation and spare parts to third party shops. So the car manufacturer can't force buyers to rely on their potentially overpriced services, discriminate competitors and prevent the development of a free market.

I know that this kind of "market freedom" is something that doesn't feel right for US citizens.

[burnerthrow008]

> Apple does not charge for "using their SDK". They charge for installing (commercial) applications to devices they produce and sell.

The mechanics of how the fee is charged don't determine what it is for. This is like saying Amazon charges you a $49 fee to use their checkout page when ordering a book.

> Your example VS Code is not related to that at all, because Microsoft doesn't prevent installing applications built with other tools. Same with the Epic game engine. Windows/Android/etc don't force you to use the Epic game engine for all games built on their platform. You can use any other technology of your choice.

Nobody is forcing you to use Apple's SDK, either: You are free to use open-source software or to write your own... Of course those tools do not exist today, and your PM probably wants to ship the app sometime this decade. Nothing stops you from doing it yourself, but you would save a lot of work if you use Apple's. This is like complaining that your neighbor built a nice house and now he won't let you live it in for free when you are not willing to do the work to build your own house.

> Even if I build an application completely without the Apple SDK, just with open source software, I can't sell it to people without paying the "Apple tax".

Irrelevant. As of today there is no distinction between "an iOS app" and "an iOS app made using Apple's tools which attracts a fee from Apple".

Anyway, you are trying to diverge from the point: As I stated before, if the EC declares Apple's fee illegal (when there is no alternative tool), that sets a precedent that you cannot charge reasonable fees to license intellectual property. That is contrary to the aim of the DMA to encourage the European tech industry. Thus, predict they will make no attempt to close this supposed loophole.

Additionally, the actual DMA, as far as I can tell from English Wikipedia says nothing about gatekeepers charging fees generally, nor allowing free side-loading specifically.

> In the EU for example all car manufacturers need to provide documentation and spare parts to third party shops.

And those parts are free (as in beer)? No, you pay a reasonable price for them. Here is just the same. Third party software shops pay a reasonable fee, and then do whatever they want with the parts Apple provides. In this case the documentation fee is $99, plus $0.50 per part. If you are a registered non-commercial entity, Apple will even give you the parts for free.

> I know that this kind of "market freedom" is something that doesn't feel right for US citizens.

You mean the kind of market freedom where Spotify (with a 70% market share) is not a monopoly (sorry, "gatekeeper") and Apple (with a 30% market share) somehow is a gatekeeper? Spotify had over $13B in revenue, but paid just $9B to record companies last year. Won't anyone think of those poor record companies that have to pay *35%* "Spotify tax"? Doesn't anyone care that Spotify prevents record companies from having a human relationship with their listeners (and offering Exceptional Customer Service)? Oh, wait, I forgot: they're Americans and the gatekeeper is based in Sweden, and maybe someone is a friend of a friend, so we don't care right?

Yea, I guess I don't mind when the government doesn't have the "freedom" to arbitrarily decide who its friends and enemies are. Rule by law, not by man. Due process and all that. Y'all should try it over there sometime.

[andix]

seriously?!

[threeseed]

There is no loop hole.

Apple is able to charge a per-sale license fee for using their SDKs same as Epic, Microsoft etc.

There isn't a single court or government in the world who has disagreed with this.

[stale2002]

No thats not the intent of the newly passed digital markets act which will come into effect soon.

But I am happy to come back to you when the EU takes action though!

Anti-trust laws are perfectly legal. We can make and enforce laws that force Apple to change, just like laws exist in all parts of the world.

[threeseed]

You have invented that intent.

Because it is not in the act nor have there been any public statements about it.

[stale2002]

The intent was for people to be able to freely sideload apps.

Also, it is in the law. There was a specific part where it said that gatekeepers cannot sidestep the law via contractual terms, or something similar to that.

But once again, I am more that happy to come back to you when the EU regulators take action against Apple, to force them to comply.

Will you admit that you are wrong if action is taken by the EU regulators against Apple?

[andix]

I think you're completely missing the point.

The problem is not access to the SDK, the problem is that Apple is locking down their platform to competitors. They can't sell apps or content without giving a commission to the "gate keeper" Apple.

Epic is not one of the biggest device manufacturers. And Microsoft is definitively not locking out third party developers from Windows. Everyone can just sell Windows applications without paying Microsoft a dime. Windows is even fully open to PWAs, with the Edge browser from Microsoft or any other third party browser.

[threeseed]

> They can't sell apps or content without giving a commission to the "gate keeper" Apple

Again. There isn't a single court or government that has said this is not permitted.

Including the EU.

[andix]

False, that's exactly what the Digital Markets Act is about.

Apple is trying to circumvent it right now with those new fees, and I think this won't hold in court.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...