[EMIRELADERO]

The DMA imposes FRAND obligations on gatekeepers and free interoperability requirements ("interoperability" here meaning literally everything from using the installation APIs to install apps from the web to being able to call all OS APIs for free on your app. That's why Apple's "Core Technology Fee" is screwed)

[inspector-g]

Do you know which sections of the DMA address this? Genuinely asking because I’d like to read from the source here.

[EMIRELADERO]

Article 6(7):

> The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.

[dwaite]

So are you saying that Apple is not providing the same API to third party marketplaces as they leverage in their own App Store?

[EMIRELADERO]

Pretty much, plus to independent developers who wish to use the IPA installation off the web feature. (The Article speaks about "features", not just APIs)

Remember that it says "free of charge". 50 cents/install past 1M installs is not free of charge now is it?

[creativeSlumber]

I can't understand the cost basis for that fee that apple is imposing. If I install an thrid party app from a third party store to my phone, it wouldn't cost apple anything. Even the bandwidth cost to download is from the third party store. In this transaction, actually Apple will be the unrelated "third party"that has nothing to do with that transaction. So isn't this fee just an extortion attempt?

[smoldesu]

Strictly speaking, it costs Apple nothing to run third-party software on your device. The closest thing to a compulsory fee is whatever Apple has to pay for the notarization process (which is pennies on the dollar).

> So isn't this fee just an extortion attempt?

That's up to the courts to decide, but Apple certainly hasn't painted themselves a favorable picture. When Dutch regulators tried pressing them to include alternative payment services, Apple continued demanding 27% of those transactions. Their disrespectful and obstinate behavior in the Netherlands is what made the DMA such an urgent act in the first place.

So all this will be well-worth keeping an eye on. The iPhone already turns record-breaking profits off hardware sales alone, it will be difficult for Apple to argue they're inherently deserving of taxing aftermarket transactions. At this point, "0%" is starting to seem like the only logical software fee for iOS.

[toyg]

There is no cost basis. It's just another way to making the point that, if you do anything serious on their platform, you owe Apple some serious cash. Extortion is a strong word, I prefer the more objective "parasitical rent-seeking".

[asadotzler]

DING DING DING DING DING DING unless that was sarcasm. Then, cheers