The risk with Apple calling the EU's "bluff" is that the EU may then to seek to break Apple apart into hardware and software divisions, and Apple will have handed the EU the ammunition they need to guarantee it happens.
Looks like Apple is forcing the question: Will the EU compel Apple to give away or license their software, apis, and technology at some price other than Apple sets?
If the EU takes that position, I’d have to think the US and other governments would start to look at EU IP the same way. Something to be regulated and taken at a price that local government prefers.
> give away or license their software, apis, and technology
This is a strange concept, especially in historical context. Windows, for example, was always free to develop on unless you wanted to use MS’s tooling, in which case you could buy in a la carte or subscribe to MSDN. The owner of the device had a license to the technology and MS’s stack, and the developers licensed the developer tools if they chose to do so.
Even on iOS, the dev tools are cheap, and the device owner holds an iOS license. And the charge for distributing software is $0 — there is no charge for distributing software.
So what Apple really seems to be charging for is permission to charge money for iOS apps. And I think I’m with the EU here — Apple is gatekeeping and is charging something entirely unrelated to Apple’s costs.
I think its fair to say that Microsoft Windows is a different product entirely. Microsoft's business model literally a monopoly (100% install base) and they were willing to make different trade offs to get there. Interestingly though, the OS cost money--not free. So to run that "free" software, you had to pay MS money for the privilege.
iOS dev tools may be cheap. But that's not point. Apple has invested billions into that ecosystem. And to foster adoption, Apple's licensing model allowed for "free" software. But that was funded by the revenue collected from non-free iOS apps.
Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again?
This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc
Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device.
If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features.
There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for.
The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
While this looks like the EU tying itself up in knots, it's likely Apple will 'take another look' at this very soon and even reverse it before the year is out.
It's like a public negotiation between the EU and Apple.
Basically everyone wants Apple to forgo all fees on the platform. That's not realistic, nor likely even something a public company can do without either breaking their fiduciary responsibility to share holders or tanking the stock.
It's also not helpful that the EU's approach to legislation requires that companies implement something in market before they'll take a look at it.
The actual solution is very simple, and wouldn't even need the EU to "look at it": They charge consumers for the hardware and the OS, they charge developers the $100 per year for the tooling, they charge however much they want to sell apps on their app store, and they stop restricting and demanding to be a party to anything else.
I think forcing them to support pwa installs could be even better and, ironically, match the original vision of steve jobs better, with mostly webapps.
Internal emails from Apple have been released in various court trials. There is publicly available email proof that Steve Jobs had to be convinced to release public APIs and make an App Store months after the iPhone was released.
I'd have a link but it looks like techemails.com have put their archives behind a paywall...
Readit News
EU: “Sure, if you’re in our market, play by our rules. You’re always free to leave.”
If the EU takes that position, I’d have to think the US and other governments would start to look at EU IP the same way. Something to be regulated and taken at a price that local government prefers.
This is a strange concept, especially in historical context. Windows, for example, was always free to develop on unless you wanted to use MS’s tooling, in which case you could buy in a la carte or subscribe to MSDN. The owner of the device had a license to the technology and MS’s stack, and the developers licensed the developer tools if they chose to do so.
Even on iOS, the dev tools are cheap, and the device owner holds an iOS license. And the charge for distributing software is $0 — there is no charge for distributing software.
So what Apple really seems to be charging for is permission to charge money for iOS apps. And I think I’m with the EU here — Apple is gatekeeping and is charging something entirely unrelated to Apple’s costs.
iOS dev tools may be cheap. But that's not point. Apple has invested billions into that ecosystem. And to foster adoption, Apple's licensing model allowed for "free" software. But that was funded by the revenue collected from non-free iOS apps.
This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc
Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for.
The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
Basically everyone wants Apple to forgo all fees on the platform. That's not realistic, nor likely even something a public company can do without either breaking their fiduciary responsibility to share holders or tanking the stock.
It's also not helpful that the EU's approach to legislation requires that companies implement something in market before they'll take a look at it.
I'd have a link but it looks like techemails.com have put their archives behind a paywall...
Deleted Comment
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41194204
Dead Comment