A New Wrinkle in the Epic/Apple Battle

[throAU]

If we take them seriously then yes, banking apps using Apple's IP should be charged 30% for every transaction

Nah.

That isn't the vendor of the app making money via an in-app transaction. That's a transaction between two third parties who are not selling something they made using Apple's APIs and distributing a product via the App Store.

 

[diamond.g]

Nah.

That isn't the vendor of the app making money via an in-app transaction. That's a transaction between two third parties who are not selling something they made using Apple's APIs and distributing a product via the App Store.

How would Apple get API money for apps that sell things that Apple doesn't get a cut from?

 

[amonduin]

Nah.

That isn't the vendor of the app making money via an in-app transaction. That's a transaction between two third parties who are not selling something they made using Apple's APIs and distributing a product via the App Store.

You just said

[*]If software is distributed via the App Store and/or leverages the Apple SDKs then they deserve a cut for each. As I see it there are two things apple deserve compensation for - distribution and software library use.

This contradicts that. Banking apps are both distributed via the App Store, AND leverage Apple's SDK.

Also, Banks are making money via a transaction that occurs within the App, (unless you have a no-fee account and your bank/credit card doesn't have any backend deals with merchants to take a percentage of transactions).

Spotify and the banks both use Apple's APIs to build the Apps that facilitate the transaction, they both use the Apple's APIs to make money.

Likewise Apps selling physical goods and Reader apps also use Apple's APIs and tools to make money.

The singling out of Digital goods continues to be justifiable only as an arbitrary business decision, which, given that I (and the EU) believe Apple should be acting as a neutral gatekeeper they shouldn't be doing.

1. I'd suggest that the quality of the Apple (not just iOS) software libraries is worth some amount. However if apple want to take some amount of money for that they need to provide the option for development not using said SDKs.

If developers want to host their stuff elsewhere via another store, they should still pay the royalties for use of the SDKs.

These are two things that Apple needs to be careful of. I think that if the EU is serious about open access and Apple continues to try and monetize its SDK access then we could see the rise of Electron style Apps on iPhones. Avoiding the use of Apple's IP as much as possible.

In recent years Apple moved from "the App Store commission pays for running the store" to "the App Store commission pays for IP and SDK access" and this move has mostly been internalized and while I agree that Apple should be allowed to charge a fee for API access in principle I think that doing so will ultimately undermine the platform.

There is a reason that open platforms (without a gatekeeper) typically do not charge for SDK access, it is because they want developers to use their SDK because it makes the platform better. Apple's control of iOS (gatekeeping) has distorted this normal trend because they have been able to force devs to use their SDKs.

 

[thenewperson]

How would Apple get API money for apps that sell things that Apple doesn't get a cut from?

The ones that sell things that Apple does get a cut from, I'd imagine. After all, that's been the arrangement since the App Store launched. Then again, with the CTF arrangement in the EU it seems they're walking back on things like that.

 

[diamond.g]

The ones that sell things that Apple does get a cut from, I'd imagine. After all, that's been the arrangement since the App Store launched. Then again, with the CTF arrangement in the EU it seems they're walking back on things like that.

I think the argument that some folk have: Apple says it is an API fee, but Amazon doesn't have to pay while Epic would. EDIT: Incomplete thought...

Basically some folks are looking for consistency/fairness.


I had always thought that everyone new that F2P (P2W) games were basically bankrolling the whole of the iOS app store (which neatly explains why Apple is so hostle towards anything that loosens that strong hold [ Game Pass...])

 

[Cmaier]

I think the argument that some folk have: Apple says it is an API fee, but Amazon doesn't have to pay while Epic would. EDIT: Incomplete thought...

The same logic means we shouldn’t have senior citizen discounts, museums shouldn’t be free on Mondays, theaters shouldn’t charge less for matinees, you shouldn’t have to pay less for buying things in bulk, etc.

 

[Nycturne]

These are two things that Apple needs to be careful of. I think that if the EU is serious about open access and Apple continues to try and monetize its SDK access then we could see the rise of Electron style Apps on iPhones. Avoiding the use of Apple's IP as much as possible.

That's already happening for different reasons, it's just called React Native. If people could use Electron, they would, IP or not. Right now the main issue is that WebKit is not robust enough for the sort of bloatware that runs on Electron.

That said it's going to be pretty hard to avoid Apple's IP otherwise.

However if apple want to take some amount of money for that they need to provide the option for development not using said SDKs.

How would that work other than web apps (something PWAs already mostly do)?

QT, React Native, Unity, Unreal, etc are all called "middleware" for a reason. You may abstract yourself from the platform this way, but the middleware is still reliant on them. Web apps and PWAs run on what amounts to Apple-provided middleware, and running them in Chromium/Blink would still require a build that sits on the platform, so still middleware.

I just don't know how you'd interact with the iOS/Mac/etc window manager, GPU, or whatever without using Apple SDKs. This is a weird statement in my mind.

 

[amonduin]

That's already happening for different reasons, it's just called React Native. If people could use Electron, they would, IP or not. Right now the main issue is that WebKit is not robust enough for the sort of bloatware that runs on Electron.

That said it's going to be pretty hard to avoid Apple's IP otherwise.

I am well aware of react native, but that would still require an IP license because it is a (bad) attempt at creating a bridge to the native SDK.

How would that work other than web apps (something PWAs already mostly do)?

QT, React Native, Unity, Unreal, etc are all called "middleware" for a reason. You may abstract yourself from the platform this way, but the middleware is still reliant on them. Web apps and PWAs run on what amounts to Apple-provided middleware, and running them in Chromium/Blink would still require a build that sits on the platform, so still middleware.

I just don't know how you'd interact with the iOS/Mac/etc window manager, GPU, or whatever without using Apple SDKs. This is a weird statement in my mind.

I think that in the EU Apple is going to be required to allow devs to just access the system without SDKs. So if devs are able to just build a web browser on iOS via reverse engineering just what they need to get a browser engine running then Apple won't be able to take any cut of the revenue. Why do I think this? Because in the EU (from what I understand anyway) you (the user) own a copy of the OS on your phone and thus are free to install whatever you want on it. Apple can't really forbid devs from accessing its IP on the phone because they already sold the phone with a copy of the OS on it and don't have a right to control what gets installed on that phone at that point. They can forbid devs that aren't paying them a fee from accessing the official SDK and tools but I don't think they'll be able to stop them from hacking something together that doesn't use the official SDK and tools.

I don't want this to happen to be clear, but at some point if Apple gets too greedy and controlling it could drive devs away from the official tools.

If Apple tried this on macOS we would see an increase in Electron apps, I also think we would see a few large devs giving up on the platform, we would not suddenly see devs paying Apple their fee.

In most OSs (macOS, Windows) where the OS maker does not have complete control we don't usually see licensing fees like this because it would drive away Devs. Since Devs are the one of the keys to platform success usually platform vendors do everything in their power to keep them happy rather than constantly finding new ways to alienate them.

 

[Nycturne]

I think that in the EU Apple is going to be required to allow devs to just access the system without SDKs. So if devs are able to just build a web browser on iOS via reverse engineering just what they need to get a browser engine running then Apple won't be able to take any cut of the revenue.

The problem isn't so much the engine itself (that's mostly platform agnostic anyways), it's how that engine does anything useful to the end user. Who in their right mind wants to reverse engineer UIKit and WindowServer? How do you display something on the screen without WindowServer? Are you suggesting that the SDK is merely the tools, and maybe the headers, and not the libraries themselves (the meat of the IP)?

Why do I think this? Because in the EU (from what I understand anyway) you (the user) own a copy of the OS on your phone and thus are free to install whatever you want on it. Apple can't really forbid devs from accessing its IP on the phone because they already sold the phone with a copy of the OS on it and don't have a right to control what gets installed on that phone at that point. They can forbid devs that aren't paying them a fee from accessing the official SDK and tools but I don't think they'll be able to stop them from hacking something together that doesn't use the official SDK and tools.

EU has also required FRAND terms on IP that is considered to be an important standard. Which would be the simpler approach here rather than trying to say that Apple has no IP rights at all to the libraries and devices they produce. This runs counter to how IP has been treated in the past.

I don't want this to happen to be clear, but at some point if Apple gets too greedy and controlling it could drive devs away from the official tools.

Many developers already have a low opinion of Apple's tools, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at here? Where would they go which is not also reliant on Apple's IP? How do you ensure that it isn't reliant on Apple's IP? This is the question you keep giving half-hearted answers to, and is the crux of why I don't believe it would play out this way.

If Apple tried this on macOS we would see an increase in Electron apps, I also think we would see a few large devs giving up on the platform, we would not suddenly see devs paying Apple their fee.

So basically nothing changes on macOS, got it.

 

[diamond.g]

The same logic means we shouldn’t have senior citizen discounts, museums shouldn’t be free on Mondays, theaters shouldn’t charge less for matinees, you shouldn’t have to pay less for buying things in bulk, etc.

I would argue that '(hot) women getting into the club for free (no cover charge) while guys pay' is more similar than the examples you gave.

 

[quarkysg]

I would argue that '(hot) women getting into the club for free (no cover charge) while guys pay' is more similar than the examples you gave.

I’m sure you know the reason right? (Hot) women draws mens which in turn means more sales of drinks.

Apple decided that Amazon’s do not need to pay because if there’s no Amazon app, many Apple customers will be pissed and thus leave. EPIC on the other hand …

It always amases me that folks nowadays felt so entitled that they have to dictate a private business’ business model and pass moral judgement on what they felt is wrong even tho. no wrongdoing have been committed.

 

[amonduin]

I’m sure you know the reason right? (Hot) women draws mens which in turn means more sales of drinks.

Apple decided that Amazon’s do not need to pay because if there’s no Amazon app, many Apple customers will be pissed and thus leave. EPIC on the other hand …

It always amases me that folks nowadays felt so entitled that they have to dictate a private business’ business model and pass moral judgement on what they felt is wrong even tho. no wrongdoing have been committed.

What can be fine for a small company is a problem for a large one. In this case the problem is if that business grows to the size and importance of Apple's they can distort free choice among developers and businesses. People still have this mindset that Apple is the plucky underdog when in fact it is the giant behemoth that is controlling access to one of the most important markets in the world. When a business becomes important enough governments start to take an interest and they are likely to insist that that business operate on more neutral terms. Just as ISPs are required to treat data mostly equally Apple is going to be required to treat apps more equally. If Apple was smaller and didn't control something like 80% of consumer spending on mobile devices they could probably get away with different rules for different apps.

 

[quarkysg]

In this case the problem is if that business grows to the size and importance of Apple's they can distort free choice among developers and businesses.

This is often cited. Can you list a few examples? What free choice has Apple distorted now, compared to say in 2010? What has changed other than Apple being successful thru their own hard work?

What rights have any developer to ask for anything without paying a price to make a profit for themselves? Are you saying that developer should get freebies from Apple because Apple can afford it? Why should Apple or for that matter any businesses in this world be forced to give stuffs away?

When has Apple's product and services been classified as a public utility that needed to be regulated?

What law or regulation did Apple break?

This is really weird argument.

 

[Cmaier]

What can be fine for a small company is a problem for a large one. In this case the problem is if that business grows to the size and importance of Apple's they can distort free choice among developers and businesses. People still have this mindset that Apple is the plucky underdog when in fact it is the giant behemoth that is controlling access to one of the most important markets in the world. When a business becomes important enough governments start to take an interest and they are likely to insist that that business operate on more neutral terms. Just as ISPs are required to treat data mostly equally Apple is going to be required to treat apps more equally. If Apple was smaller and didn't control something like 80% of consumer spending on mobile devices they could probably get away with different rules for different apps.

Apple is not going to be required to treat apps more equally. There is no legal framework that would allow a court to make that happen.

 

[amonduin]

Apple is not going to be required to treat apps more equally. There is no legal framework that would allow a court to make that happen.

There are dozens of places in the EU DMA that seem to imply Apple has to treat Apps accessing the iOS app market fairly.

Just from Article 6:
5. The gatekeeper shall not treat more favourably, in ranking and related indexing and crawling, services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself than similar services or products of a third party. The gatekeeper shall apply transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions to such ranking.
12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9).
13. The gatekeeper shall not have general conditions for terminating the provision of a core platform service that are disproportionate. The gatekeeper shall ensure that the conditions of termination can be exercised without undue difficulty.

These seem to me to imply that Apple is going to have to treat apps more equally. Will all users and devs globally benefit from this? Probably not right away, but if the DMA is effective I can definitely see other jurisdictions taking inspiration from it.

 

[amonduin]

This is often cited. Can you list a few examples? What free choice has Apple distorted now, compared to say in 2010? What has changed other than Apple being successful thru their own hard work?

No company that wants to build a hardware-software product that relies on a mobile app can ignore iOS, the size and scope of Apple's market is so large that they (Apple) can dictate which products get to succeed and which do not. While I do not necessarily agree with the DoJ complaint they do have a point that Apple's control (rather than any hard technical limitations) prevent someone like Samsung from offering watch and headphone integration that competes with Apple's in terms of ease of use. This is Apple's dominance preferring their own product over a competitors. If Apple did not also make headphones they would not have motivation and incentive to exclude third party headphone integration.

Note: I would argue that system level background services detecting proximity (as would be required to offer equivalent integration for Samsung headphones and AirPods) is not something I would want someone just bolting on to the system.

What rights have any developer to ask for anything without paying a price to make a profit for themselves? Are you saying that developer should get freebies from Apple because Apple can afford it? Why should Apple or for that matter any businesses in this world be forced to give stuffs away?

I actually do think they should be able/permitted to charge for IP, however, I think that in order for said fee to be FRAND it should be a per user fee not a per transaction or per download fee. If this fee is FRAND, then all apps are going to pay it, which means Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, McDonalds, Walmart are all going to have to pay it. Some of these companies might just pull their iOS apps if the fee is too high. Apple will have to balance the size of the fee to make sure they don't lose too many devs. I don't actually know if they should charge just for iOS SDK access and tools. I also don't 100% know if they are allowed to charge for SDK access in the EU given the way they are classified as gatekeepers by the EU DMA, it might just require them to offer free access. (Edit: I think they should be allowed to charge for IP use and that if the DMA does prohibit them from charging for access it is wrong to have made such a determination).

When has Apple's product and services been classified as a public utility that needed to be regulated?

The whole DMA is one giant set of rules that essentially does take steps towards declaring iOS and Android as being nearer to utilities.

What law or regulation did Apple break?

This is really weird argument.

In the EU it is believed that Apple broke the anti-steering rules, that is a law that a court ruled Apple broke and thus fined them 2 Billion euros for.

 

[Cmaier]

There are dozens of places in the EU DMA that seem to imply Apple has to treat Apps accessing the iOS app market fairly.

This is America, bub.

 

[amonduin]

This is America, bub.

Do you mean, this forum is only for Americans or that this thread is only about America? Since Epic tried to get back into the store in the EU with the intention (apparently) of bringing Fortnite and the Epic store to iOS in Europe I was under the impression this thread was broader than just America.

 

[diamond.g]

I’m sure you know the reason right? (Hot) women draws mens which in turn means more sales of drinks.

Apple decided that Amazon’s do not need to pay because if there’s no Amazon app, many Apple customers will be pissed and thus leave. EPIC on the other hand …

It always amases me that folks nowadays felt so entitled that they have to dictate a private business’ business model and pass moral judgement on what they felt is wrong even tho. no wrongdoing have been committed.

I am 100% aware of how clubs work.

 

[Yoused]

A big difference between Amazon and a company like Epic is that Amazon sells you stuff, while an Epic sells you phantasms. There was a story of a teenager who wiped out her parents' life savings trading abstract nothings with friends and strangers. I believe that, if Apple is sort of in its way working to throttle abstract extravagance, that could be a net positive.