Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon (and must be compiled with) Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license. Of course Apple isn't requiring code to be open source like the GPL. Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries—say, the Metal graphics APIs—just as Epic Games does for the use of Unreal Engine libraries.
Therefore it's entirely reasonable to imagine that if third party payment gateways are permitted, Apple could still organise things so that they are legally entitled to a percentage cut of app sales. Again, just like Unreal Engine.
I didn't vote either way, but I'm not sure that this is the way the GPL works. As I understand it, you can distribute only binaries as long as you supply _on request_ the source code. FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous and what I would guess the downvotes were for.
> Similarly, an iOS app which substantially relies upon Apple's libraries in order to work is subject to whatever the terms Apple includes in their software license
Yes, they are free to do what they want, barring regulation. Which is what this is. Deliberately loopholing around the legislation is an option, but a risky manoeuvre that might just invite more legislation.
> FWIW the link to the GPL reads as quite tenuous
The link is that any developer—whether they're Linus Torvalds or Apple Inc—should be allowed to choose the terms in which they release their copyrightable works into the public.
• One developer could choose the GPL.
• Another developer could choose a license which requires a flat, one-off fee.
• Yet another developer could chose a license that is free up front but mandates a revenue share under certain conditions, such as Epic Games does with Unreal Engine.
In all instances, it is copyright law which enforces these license terms. So if you like the fact that Linus can distribute Linux under the GPL, you must also accept that some other company will have the right to distribute their software under their license.
The issue is not that your argument is controversial. It's that it falls flat because it's based on an incorrect assumption.
> Apple could choose whatever terms they want. It would be perfectly within Apple's right to require a revenue share for use of those libraries
No they can't.
There are a broad set of laws restricting how companies can or can not do business. These laws severely limit the terms Apple can set. Laws restricting anticompetitve behaviors would be part of this set, same for the new regulations in South Korea we are currently discussing.
Are you suggesting that Apple charging developers a percentage-based license fee for use of their work is unlawful anywhere, under any law current or proposed?
The crux of the discussion generally focus on the parts of the contract preventing developers from using competing works in addition to the fees. That seems to fall squarly into your "whatever terms they want". And yes, I do personaly think there is a case to be made that Apple licensing terms are anti-competitive, an opinion which seems shared by the EU’s competition chief.
Your opinion seems to be that Apple could just stop charging a fee for using the App Store and charge it for the use of a different but similarly unavoidable part of the system instead. But that's merely a technicality. It doesn't fundamentaly change the question.
Tell that to Nintendo. Sony. Microsoft. Canon. Nikon. Garmin. Alpine. Pioneer. LG. Samsung. Volkswagen. Hyundai. The list goes on. Software is all around us. The traditional general purpose computer platforms are the exception, not the rule.
It's about control. Apple control how and which apps get to users, and use this control to impose terms, license or otherwise, that maximize their revenue and other goals.
Perhaps you are right that Apple could reengineer the business model to charge software licensing fees rather than payment service fees. They could also make the 30% a publishing fee. There are probably other options too. You can do a lot when you have the power that they have.
That said, practicalities matter. If you want to take a cut of a large number of apps' revenue... the place to do it is point-of-sale. Take your cut before app devs get theirs. If payments go to app developers via some other payment system, Apple now needs to chase down a revenue linked licensing fees from 2m apps... that's messy and impractical. They don't know how much they are owed, for one thing.
I'm not trying to portrait Google as innocent, there's still work to be done. But they are absolutely in different leagues with Apple when it comes to user freedom.
Google has enormous power over phone suppliers and can force them to preinstall their apps and store and nothing else.
Also forcing users through multiple warning screens and settings until you have finally installed an app might look trivial if you know what you are doing but for everyone else might not be as easy. There are many, many articles about how you should simplify your websites onboarding process to increase the amount of customers so the Android flow is pretty much the anti-thesis to that.
I am not against a publishing fee instead of what there is now, but it should be fair and transparent. Not that the current system is fair and transparent...
Then again, why should Apple and Google charge fees for something they have no hand in?
If they want to charge fees for distribution, they should just do that.
Same reason as now: because they can and are in the money making business.
I'm not saying this is right, just that it is what it is. Google and Apple will not just forgo millions if not billions of "easy" dollars. My guess is that especially the big players, who make Google and Apple the most money, will switch to different payment processors with better terms for them as soon as that option becomes available to them.
I remember paying $25 or so to open a google play developer account. For Apple, you pay $99 yearly.
I wouldn’t call $99/year “not paying.”
Apple's libraries are licensed to developers under whatever license Apple chooses. They could require a certain revenue share regardless of which payment gateway is used. Heck, they could license it under the GPL and require all developers who build programs against their libraries to release their source code. It's their code, it's up to them.
Similarly, Epic Games can decide when developers might have to pay Epic for software they distribute with Unreal Engine. Whether it's a flat fee, a revenue share, a profit share, if there are discounts or incentives—all of that is entirely for Epic to decide.
Well, until the regulators step in (again).
The difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is that Apple is worth a trillion dollars. That matters quite a bit.
They are free, however to not come sell in places it feels the rules are unfair towards it.
But they are free to choose the price. They can sell the next iPhone for $10,000 if they really wanted. Perfectly legal.
They are free to choose under which terms they license their intellectual property to third parties, so long as those terms are lawful.
The point of all this is, Apple has absolutely no say in any of this. They are free to set the terms of their sales according to the law in the country, and that is it. It doesn't get anything more.
> > > Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market?
It seems your answer is yes.
Interestingly, the $99/year fee is to access the app store, but there's a a $299/year fee to bypass the appstore.
https://developer.apple.com/support/enrollment/ notes: The Apple Developer Program annual fee is 99 USD and the Apple Developer Enterprise Program annual fee is 299 USD
The $299 enterprise program probably costs Apple substantially more than $299 per customer/enterprise in order to run. While I have no idea about the numbers, I wouldn't be surprised that it is a substantial loss-maker for Apple, justified only because it's necessary to keep the iPhone/iPad relevant in some enterprises.