[gamblor956]

*I suspect that if tool manufacturers were expected to provide years of free upgrades to end users of their tools in order to support an ever changing security landscape and close any issues caused by the combination of their tools with 3rd party services, that tool manufacturers would be interested in getting a continual cut of revenue generated by those interactions.

This is an actual issue in the real world that is dealt with using "support contracts." They've only been around for a few centuries or so...

Apple's problems are those of its own making. And if it keeps trying to bait regulators like this, it may soon find itself referred to as "Ma Apple" and its former divisions as "Baby Apples."

[tpmoney]

So which of the following "support contracts" do we suppose the EU would be happy with and doesn't violate the DMA?

Paid iOS updates in the EU? I remind you that the EU argued that a paid ad free version of Facebook's services violates the DMA.

A per-install fee for services developed with Apple's SDKs? That's basically the CTF and that hasn't been met with resounding happiness.

A flat revenue sharing agreement a-la most of the major game engines? That's the core iOS platform model that the DMA is partially a response to.

I suppose we could go back to multi-thousand dollar up front per seat SDK licenses on annual contracts the way folks like Microsoft, Oracle, Qualcomm, Blackberry and Apple used to do, but that really hurts the smaller developers and is part of why the iOS model was such a huge deal when it was first announced.

Look, I'm not arguing that Apple isn't and doesn't make moves that are short sighted and seem purposefully designed to piss off the regulators. But I also don't actually see any option that isn't "free, unlimited, unrestricted access to all of Apple's SDKs and libraries indefinitely" that will ultimately satisfy. No one seems to have an answer for what model Apple can use that

A) Covers their costs

and

B) Allows them to continue to do whatever it is that makes it such that iOS does all these things that Android and Android vendors can't apparently do despite being more open and free

[dwallin]

Apple has had no problems with providing their macOS libraries, tooling, and associated updates for free, even with a drastically smaller user base, and it appears to have been sustainable for decades.

The truth of the matter is Apple would almost certainly continue to do offer their iPhone services, updates, app store, etc; even if they were statutorily prohibited from making any money off of any of it, because in the end it makes for a better user experience and helps them differentiate and sell their phones at a premium.

What is happening, is the more financial-minded types within Apple have realized they have substantial lock-in and market power, and they can leverage it to take a % of profits from other market entities.

If you actually care about Apple products, and want them to continue to deliver great products well into the future, then the best thing that could happen would be for them to get the message and accept a loss in this battle. Otherwise you will see increased financialization continue until they are thoroughly hollowed out of great product/engineering culture, and collapse under their own weight, like so many before them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4

[EMIRELADERO]

> Look, I'm not arguing that Apple isn't and doesn't make moves that are short sighted and seem purposefully designed to piss off the regulators. But I also don't actually see any option that isn't "free, unlimited, unrestricted access to all of Apple's SDKs and libraries indefinitely" that will ultimately satisfy. No one seems to have an answer for what model Apple can use

I do, hardware sales should be more than enough. They already cover the device's (and iOS's) R&D costs with more money to spare. This whole brouhaha is due to them simply wanting more, not because they wouldn't survive/profit at all without their current measures.

[tpmoney]

> They already cover the device's (and iOS's) R&D costs with more money to spare.

So like I said, "free, unlimited, unrestricted access to all of Apple's SDKs and libraries indefinitely", just with an implied "with all costs borne by the end consumer purchasers of the hardware" tacked on to the end? Obviously all costs are eventually borne by the consumer, but given that Apple has dropped the "can't charge more on iOS then elsewhere" requirements, couldn't developers just raise their prices for their products on iOS and we could skip all of this extra rigamarole?

Edit:

And to be clear, I really don't have a huge issue with a developer saying "I don't want to pay any of the costs of supporting or developing the platform that I use to sell my goods and services. I want the provider of that platform to extract the costs of providing that platform to me from the end users on that platform that I am selling to". That's a well trod model in the computer space, and it would be hypocritical of me to argue that's somehow wrong when my entire professional career is built on platforms and services that I pay nothing to maintain or support.

I just think that we should recognize what we're doing and be honest with ourselves. Part of why major open source projects have funding issues is in part because we do this a lot in the software world, but a lot of those open source projects don't have end users to charge either because the developers are the end users. We are lucky that Apple has end users to bear our costs for us.

[meiraleal]

> we are lucky that Apple has end users to bear our costs for us.

Talk for yourself. Apple is lucky to have a fanbase like this.

[gamblor956]

No one seems to have an answer for what model Apple can use

Every support contract of this nature that I've seen is a fixed, flat fee. And someone, businesses outside of tech, with their far higher costs, are able to make it work.

Apple could easily use this business model, but its profits would be far lower. Apple's grown quite large and comfortable with a business model centered around illegal profits (in this context, referring to the excess profits derived from their anti-competitive behavior) and like other businesses premised on abusive behavior, it's going to fight.