What other industries can try this? For a restaurant built on a cement foundation... maybe the cement company can release a product to fix the cracks in their flawed mixture, and then demand 10% of every pizza sold in the building. ... I think the industry needs to get away from OS vendor tyranny, somehow.
If you write a software program for a client, you get paid. If a actor works for a day on a TV show he may get cheques forever.
If you hire a photographer for a wedding, you will pay him the same rate as a contract developer. But you won't own the rights to the photos and keep having to pay the guy if you want copies.
I can understand the owner of the TV show or owner of a song charging for commercial use, in the same way if you work for Gmail Google will sell the product forever.
Gmail developers past and present don't get cheques every year.
> If a actor works for a day on a TV show he may get cheques forever.
Most actors get paid either a fixed fee or hourly. It's only the top talent that can negotiate points. And honestly, that's pretty good for the producers, since that decreases their risk if the TV show or movie doesn't do well.
> If you hire a photographer for a wedding, you will pay him the same rate as a contract developer. But you won't own the rights to the photos and keep having to pay the guy if you want copies.
This part is so weird to me. But I honestly suspect that most photography customers don't care so much about owning the rights to the photograph they pay for, as long as they can use it how they want. And over time, the norm gradually became baked into the industry.
> that decreases their risk if the TV show or movie doesn't do well.
The risk is not decreased. The risk is the same, just moved around. Instead of the producers risking not making a certain amount of profit, now you have the risk that the actor only asked and got a paltry sum for a runaway success.
The uncertainty of how a movie will fare cannot be removed from existence through contracts or financial arrangements. But you can make it so some other party suffers instead of you.
...it's possible we have the same opinion. I'm not sure if this is a counter argument or just a rephrasing :)
I think the core idea is to avoid someone actually losing money. The producer might end up with a loss, the actor's profit is strictly positive (not accounting for opportunity costs...).
Or something in between: for my wedding I got digital files and a perpetual license for personal use, so I can print and share with family, etc. That’s all I really wanted. The photographer kept her copyright.
If the photographer uses the photos they created at your wedding as publicity on their website, or if they sold prints widely, or if they set up something like a stock photography business ... you and your spouse would be models/actors, and your poses would be modelling/performances.
There ought to be some remuneration for your efforts in those situations.
This is the key point. If you hire an actor for a live stage show, it is a one time fee. The live show happens, the tickets are sold, the actor gets paid, and at the end of the day everyone goes home.
But what if you recorded that show? You’ve now made a copy of a performance. When you sell a copy of that recording, you’ve made a copy of the actors work. But you only paid for the single live show, so or course there should be some kind of further compensation. The original payment was to see their one-time performance. The actor still owns the artistic/intellectual rights to their interpretation/performance. If you want a copy of that, they need to get paid.
For software developers, they are paid specifically to create intellectual property and as part of their employment agreement, any IP rights belong to the company. But this is part of their contract.
It’s all in how the employment agreements are setup. Any actor/photographer/etc could be hired to a contract that would allow unlimited copies without royalties. It happens all the time. But. if you are an actor with enough clout, such a contract would be very expensive. I’d also imagine stock photo shoots work this way. The models are paid a one-time fee with an unlimited release.
But, I think the key part is that contracts with royalties are cheaper (cashflow) for the producers. The actors get paid a small fixed amount with a percentage of the ongoing profits. The alternative would be a large payout initially with no share of the profits. Both contracts are possible, but the former spreads the risk (and rewards) across a larger pool of people.
Whether or not this applies to Apple and foundational use of software is a different story, but it’s pretty well established for arts.
My very limited understanding of retail real estate in the US is that leasing agreements in shopping centers and malls typically include a percentage of sales.
I don’t think this will end well. EU is slow to move, but they will and it’s obvious that Apple is not acting in good faith. Whether the request of EU is right or not, they can legally impose some rules and they are binding as long as you are willing to sell in that market.
Yeah, this piece is remarkably unclear in its message, but my read is similar.
It sounds like they're not actually changing much at all, and continue to plan to charge a fee on software released through alternatives, like 3rd party marketplaces or the web.
Personally - whoever thought that replacing "Fee" with "Commission" was a good call, when the words are literally synonyms (to the point that MW defines commission as "a fee paid to an agent") is smoking some drugs.
---
My entire read here is: "We're changing some words to try the lawsuit again". I hope the penalty here from the EU is sharp and quick.
This is Tim Cook being an arrogant shithead towards the EU once again. This hubris is exactly how he got fined last time - it seems he didn't learn his lesson.
> Vestager was well into the second half of her investigation, and she was unlikely to be swayed by the platitudes and buzzwords Cook came prepared to deliver. Nor did Cook advance his cause when he spent a one-on-one meeting interrupting and talking over her, according to those briefed on the encounter. Apple declined at the time to comment about the meeting.
> App Store apps that communicate and promote offers for digital goods or services will be subject to new business terms for those transactions — an initial acquisition fee, store services fee, and for apps on the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) Addendum, the Core Technology Commission (CTC).
This means that for example the Kindle app on Apple's app store will continue to not offer in-app-initiated ebook purchases.
I'm doubtful that the EC will deem this scheme to be fully compliant with the DMA.
> App Store apps that communicate and promote offers for digital goods or services will be subject to new business terms for those transactions — an initial acquisition fee, store services fee, and for apps on the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) Addendum, the Core Technology Commission (CTC). The CTC reflects value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users.
It is not very clear from the press release: will developers still have to pay Apple even if their apps are coming from 3rd party AppStores? And if so, how much?
Sooo if you can freely distribute your apps on iOS now and you can steer people to your website for purchases (eg outside the Appstore) - doesn’t that mean that you can get away from paying the 5%?
“By January 1, 2026, Apple plans to move to a single business model in the EU for all developers. Under this single business model, Apple will transition from the Core Technology Fee (CTF) to the CTC on digital goods or services. The CTC will apply to digital goods or services sold by apps distributed from the App Store, Web Distribution, and/or alternative marketplaces.
“As of January 1, 2026, the CTC may be explicitly charged as a separate commission or, in certain cases, may be identified as a component of another commission and will apply to sales of digital goods or services usable in an app on Apple’s platforms. Additional details regarding this transition will be provided at a later date.”
I.e. this applies to all apps, regardless of distribution channel. Apple will likely control this via the app review that still happens as part of the Notarization process, in conjunction with the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement.
I think there are SMB exemptions for the fees, though.
Come on, Apple, just let people sideload. 99.9% of people won’t bother at all, and if you put the opt in switch 3 levels deep in Settings 99.99% won’t even know it’s there.
Feels like Tim Apple needs to go soon, Craig Apple looked to be more open to things from the court emails that were shown.
Sorry, meant Phil Schiller, the only one to question whether a 27% commission is wise.
> Prior to the June 20 meeting, there were individuals within Apple who were advocating for a commission, and others advocating for no commission. Those advocating for a commission included Mr. Maestri and Mr. Roman. Mr. Schiller disagreed. In an email, Mr. Schiller relayed that, with respect to the proposal for “a 27% commission for 24 hours,” “I have already explained my many issues with the commission concept,” and that “clearly I am not on team commission/fee.” Mr. Schiller testified that, at the time, he “had a question of whether we would be able to charge a commission” under the Injunction, a concern which he communicated.
Schiller is now a semi-retired "Apple Fellow", so it seems unlikely that he would be the next CEO. Not to mention that Steve Jobs could have but didn't select Schiller as his successor.
I'm not sure about this. Piracy is rampant on Android. "Cracked" versions of Spotify which enable premium for unpaid users are very common. Given developers often prioritise iOS due to the fact users are more willing to pay opening the platform up to piracy could have wide ranging effects on the marketplace as a whole.
AFAIK this is pretty common on iOS too. People use AltStore or similar to auto-sideload Spotify++ or similar every week.
I'm not convinced that the reason people on Apple devices are more willing to pay is because it's harder to pirate. Piracy on Mac is just as easy on Windows, but the typical view is that, like with iPhone vs. Android, Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users.
I think the real explanation is that there are a lot of cheap Android devices throughout the world, and people who are trying to save money on devices also try to save money on apps. I suspect that if you look at the piracy rates for just the $1000+ Android devices, they won't be that much different than for the $1000+ iPhones.
We need to clarify the terms we use, then. I'm not "buying" a phone, I'm leasing one, with Apple being able to choose what I can and can't do on it.
The other day my car got an update that decided to not let sideloaded apps access the internet. The infotainment system went from amazing to useless in one tiny update, just because BYD doesn't want me to have useful apps. I can't even open my garage door without fumbling for my phone any more.
In an era where big tech commits copyright violations on a massive, automated scale to train their AI models, maybe it's time to rethink "piracy" as an offense? Why should only big corpos get to break copyright law?
I've tended to calling him Smaug. It's a fitting name in that the roots of Apple's success were software development (the "dwarves"), and for a long time developers had a great standing (internally and externally). But then Tim "Smaug" Cook took over the Iron Mountain of Apple (the hoards of Gold). And boy does Tim like money. And anyone who dares wanting any of his money are thieves. Hence software developers are thieves for wanting to maybe pay a bit less than 30%.
Who is advising Apple on these actions? Is it a team out of California? Because their approach to working with the EU seems pretty obviously unproductive and will (as it has in the past) hurt Apple, leading them to give up even more than they may have wanted, where if they worked collaboratively in good faith, they'd probably be able to negotiate the EU into a position more favorable to their preferences.
> Normally when the EU regulates a given sector, it does so with ample lead time and works with industry to make sure that they understand their obligations.
> Apple instead thought that the regulatory contact from the EU during the lead time to the DMA was an opportunity for it to lecture the EU on its right to exist. Then its executives made up some fiction in their own minds as to what the regulation meant, announced their changes, only to discover later that they were full of bullshit.
> This was entirely Apple’s own fault. For months, we’ve been hearing leaks about Apple’s talks with the EU about the Digital Market Act. Those talks were not negotiations even though Apple seems to have thought they were. Talks like those are to help companies implement incoming regulations, with some leeway for interpretation on the EU’s side to accommodate business interests.
> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are, they would have used the talks to clarify all of these issues and more well in advance of the DMA taking effect.
> But they didn’t because they have caught the tech industry management disease of demanding that reality bend to their ideas and wishes
What other industries can try this? For a restaurant built on a cement foundation... maybe the cement company can release a product to fix the cracks in their flawed mixture, and then demand 10% of every pizza sold in the building. ... I think the industry needs to get away from OS vendor tyranny, somehow.
>What other industries can try this?
I've never understood the Arts and royalties.
If you write a software program for a client, you get paid. If a actor works for a day on a TV show he may get cheques forever.
If you hire a photographer for a wedding, you will pay him the same rate as a contract developer. But you won't own the rights to the photos and keep having to pay the guy if you want copies.
I can understand the owner of the TV show or owner of a song charging for commercial use, in the same way if you work for Gmail Google will sell the product forever.
Gmail developers past and present don't get cheques every year.
> If a actor works for a day on a TV show he may get cheques forever.
Most actors get paid either a fixed fee or hourly. It's only the top talent that can negotiate points. And honestly, that's pretty good for the producers, since that decreases their risk if the TV show or movie doesn't do well.
> If you hire a photographer for a wedding, you will pay him the same rate as a contract developer. But you won't own the rights to the photos and keep having to pay the guy if you want copies.
This part is so weird to me. But I honestly suspect that most photography customers don't care so much about owning the rights to the photograph they pay for, as long as they can use it how they want. And over time, the norm gradually became baked into the industry.
You can usually get the rights but it costs more. Like in software if you want an exclusive license…
> You can usually get the rights but it costs more. Like in software if you want an exclusive license…
Nah - the correct comparison is to an employee/contractor software developer. Copyright assignment is industry standard.
> that decreases their risk if the TV show or movie doesn't do well.
The risk is not decreased. The risk is the same, just moved around. Instead of the producers risking not making a certain amount of profit, now you have the risk that the actor only asked and got a paltry sum for a runaway success.
The uncertainty of how a movie will fare cannot be removed from existence through contracts or financial arrangements. But you can make it so some other party suffers instead of you.
...it's possible we have the same opinion. I'm not sure if this is a counter argument or just a rephrasing :)
I think the core idea is to avoid someone actually losing money. The producer might end up with a loss, the actor's profit is strictly positive (not accounting for opportunity costs...).
Hollywood is organised and there have been many strikes over compensation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hollywood_strikes
You can hire a photographer and get the photo rights. But it’ll cost more. Not tremendously more; about 20-50% more than expected profit.
Or something in between: for my wedding I got digital files and a perpetual license for personal use, so I can print and share with family, etc. That’s all I really wanted. The photographer kept her copyright.
If the photographer uses the photos they created at your wedding as publicity on their website, or if they sold prints widely, or if they set up something like a stock photography business ... you and your spouse would be models/actors, and your poses would be modelling/performances.
There ought to be some remuneration for your efforts in those situations.
> keep having to pay the guy if you want copies.
This is the key point. If you hire an actor for a live stage show, it is a one time fee. The live show happens, the tickets are sold, the actor gets paid, and at the end of the day everyone goes home.
But what if you recorded that show? You’ve now made a copy of a performance. When you sell a copy of that recording, you’ve made a copy of the actors work. But you only paid for the single live show, so or course there should be some kind of further compensation. The original payment was to see their one-time performance. The actor still owns the artistic/intellectual rights to their interpretation/performance. If you want a copy of that, they need to get paid.
For software developers, they are paid specifically to create intellectual property and as part of their employment agreement, any IP rights belong to the company. But this is part of their contract.
It’s all in how the employment agreements are setup. Any actor/photographer/etc could be hired to a contract that would allow unlimited copies without royalties. It happens all the time. But. if you are an actor with enough clout, such a contract would be very expensive. I’d also imagine stock photo shoots work this way. The models are paid a one-time fee with an unlimited release.
But, I think the key part is that contracts with royalties are cheaper (cashflow) for the producers. The actors get paid a small fixed amount with a percentage of the ongoing profits. The alternative would be a large payout initially with no share of the profits. Both contracts are possible, but the former spreads the risk (and rewards) across a larger pool of people.
Whether or not this applies to Apple and foundational use of software is a different story, but it’s pretty well established for arts.
One is labor, one is capital.
My very limited understanding of retail real estate in the US is that leasing agreements in shopping centers and malls typically include a percentage of sales.
True.
It’s used incentivize landlords to maintain high traffic shared shopping areas.
And it’s not everywhere, for all kinds of tenants, and tenants with negotiating power can sometimes negotiate this down or out.
if on the other side the base rent is very low why would i not want to agree to a profit share instead of paying a higher rent? reduces the risks.
Some examples that come to mind: cell modems, video game engines, retail space leasing, fast food franchises.
Do aircraft engine manufacturers still charge airline for engine performance data?
This is already happening. But it’s not the cement company but the State. And you have no choice whatsoever.
Well, the state I can accept - death and taxes. But has it now become "death, taxes, and commissions to the authors of operating systems"?
I don’t think this will end well. EU is slow to move, but they will and it’s obvious that Apple is not acting in good faith. Whether the request of EU is right or not, they can legally impose some rules and they are binding as long as you are willing to sell in that market.
Yeah, this piece is remarkably unclear in its message, but my read is similar.
It sounds like they're not actually changing much at all, and continue to plan to charge a fee on software released through alternatives, like 3rd party marketplaces or the web.
Personally - whoever thought that replacing "Fee" with "Commission" was a good call, when the words are literally synonyms (to the point that MW defines commission as "a fee paid to an agent") is smoking some drugs.
---
My entire read here is: "We're changing some words to try the lawsuit again". I hope the penalty here from the EU is sharp and quick.
This is Tim Cook being an arrogant shithead towards the EU once again. This hubris is exactly how he got fined last time - it seems he didn't learn his lesson.
> Vestager was well into the second half of her investigation, and she was unlikely to be swayed by the platitudes and buzzwords Cook came prepared to deliver. Nor did Cook advance his cause when he spent a one-on-one meeting interrupting and talking over her, according to those briefed on the encounter. Apple declined at the time to comment about the meeting.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-vestager-took-a-bite-out...
> App Store apps that communicate and promote offers for digital goods or services will be subject to new business terms for those transactions — an initial acquisition fee, store services fee, and for apps on the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) Addendum, the Core Technology Commission (CTC).
This means that for example the Kindle app on Apple's app store will continue to not offer in-app-initiated ebook purchases.
I'm doubtful that the EC will deem this scheme to be fully compliant with the DMA.
> App Store apps that communicate and promote offers for digital goods or services will be subject to new business terms for those transactions — an initial acquisition fee, store services fee, and for apps on the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) Addendum, the Core Technology Commission (CTC). The CTC reflects value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users.
It is not very clear from the press release: will developers still have to pay Apple even if their apps are coming from 3rd party AppStores? And if so, how much?
"The CTC will apply to digital goods or services sold by apps distributed from the App Store, Web Distribution, and/or alternative marketplaces."
So yes, they'll pay the Core Technology Commission, apparently it's 5%. The per download fee will be phased out.
Sooo if you can freely distribute your apps on iOS now and you can steer people to your website for purchases (eg outside the Appstore) - doesn’t that mean that you can get away from paying the 5%?
No, see here: https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
“By January 1, 2026, Apple plans to move to a single business model in the EU for all developers. Under this single business model, Apple will transition from the Core Technology Fee (CTF) to the CTC on digital goods or services. The CTC will apply to digital goods or services sold by apps distributed from the App Store, Web Distribution, and/or alternative marketplaces.
“As of January 1, 2026, the CTC may be explicitly charged as a separate commission or, in certain cases, may be identified as a component of another commission and will apply to sales of digital goods or services usable in an app on Apple’s platforms. Additional details regarding this transition will be provided at a later date.”
I.e. this applies to all apps, regardless of distribution channel. Apple will likely control this via the app review that still happens as part of the Notarization process, in conjunction with the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement.
I think there are SMB exemptions for the fees, though.
I think there's at-least a 2% fee for that, but it's more convoluted than ever to calculate how much rent is owed for using your device.
I believe Apple still needs to review and sign every app
Yes not clear at all, and intentionally so.
A legal press release.
Come on, Apple, just let people sideload. 99.9% of people won’t bother at all, and if you put the opt in switch 3 levels deep in Settings 99.99% won’t even know it’s there.
Feels like Tim Apple needs to go soon, Craig Apple looked to be more open to things from the court emails that were shown.
Side loading is one thing, stuff like JIT being reserved for Apple only means emulators turn your phone into a hand warmer that drains the battery.
> Craig Apple looked to be more open to things from the court emails that were shown.
I saw no evidence of that. Do you have a citation?
Sorry, meant Phil Schiller, the only one to question whether a 27% commission is wise.
> Prior to the June 20 meeting, there were individuals within Apple who were advocating for a commission, and others advocating for no commission. Those advocating for a commission included Mr. Maestri and Mr. Roman. Mr. Schiller disagreed. In an email, Mr. Schiller relayed that, with respect to the proposal for “a 27% commission for 24 hours,” “I have already explained my many issues with the commission concept,” and that “clearly I am not on team commission/fee.” Mr. Schiller testified that, at the time, he “had a question of whether we would be able to charge a commission” under the Injunction, a concern which he communicated.
Schiller is now a semi-retired "Apple Fellow", so it seems unlikely that he would be the next CEO. Not to mention that Steve Jobs could have but didn't select Schiller as his successor.
>> 99.9% of people won’t bother at all
I'm not sure about this. Piracy is rampant on Android. "Cracked" versions of Spotify which enable premium for unpaid users are very common. Given developers often prioritise iOS due to the fact users are more willing to pay opening the platform up to piracy could have wide ranging effects on the marketplace as a whole.
AFAIK this is pretty common on iOS too. People use AltStore or similar to auto-sideload Spotify++ or similar every week.
I'm not convinced that the reason people on Apple devices are more willing to pay is because it's harder to pirate. Piracy on Mac is just as easy on Windows, but the typical view is that, like with iPhone vs. Android, Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users.
I think the real explanation is that there are a lot of cheap Android devices throughout the world, and people who are trying to save money on devices also try to save money on apps. I suspect that if you look at the piracy rates for just the $1000+ Android devices, they won't be that much different than for the $1000+ iPhones.
If a cracked Spotify can still play music from their service, that’s on Spotify. The security should not be on the client, but on the backend.
We need to clarify the terms we use, then. I'm not "buying" a phone, I'm leasing one, with Apple being able to choose what I can and can't do on it.
The other day my car got an update that decided to not let sideloaded apps access the internet. The infotainment system went from amazing to useless in one tiny update, just because BYD doesn't want me to have useful apps. I can't even open my garage door without fumbling for my phone any more.
I don’t know about rampant. Need to look at some data on what % of people have pirated apps.
In an era where big tech commits copyright violations on a massive, automated scale to train their AI models, maybe it's time to rethink "piracy" as an offense? Why should only big corpos get to break copyright law?
What's more, what I'm able to do on devices I buy with my money shouldn't be up to the company that manufactures them.
I've tended to calling him Smaug. It's a fitting name in that the roots of Apple's success were software development (the "dwarves"), and for a long time developers had a great standing (internally and externally). But then Tim "Smaug" Cook took over the Iron Mountain of Apple (the hoards of Gold). And boy does Tim like money. And anyone who dares wanting any of his money are thieves. Hence software developers are thieves for wanting to maybe pay a bit less than 30%.
Who is advising Apple on these actions? Is it a team out of California? Because their approach to working with the EU seems pretty obviously unproductive and will (as it has in the past) hurt Apple, leading them to give up even more than they may have wanted, where if they worked collaboratively in good faith, they'd probably be able to negotiate the EU into a position more favorable to their preferences.
I think Apple fundamentally does not understand the EU, what it's about, what it's goals are and how it operates.
This article is a good read: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...
> Normally when the EU regulates a given sector, it does so with ample lead time and works with industry to make sure that they understand their obligations.
> Apple instead thought that the regulatory contact from the EU during the lead time to the DMA was an opportunity for it to lecture the EU on its right to exist. Then its executives made up some fiction in their own minds as to what the regulation meant, announced their changes, only to discover later that they were full of bullshit.
> This was entirely Apple’s own fault. For months, we’ve been hearing leaks about Apple’s talks with the EU about the Digital Market Act. Those talks were not negotiations even though Apple seems to have thought they were. Talks like those are to help companies implement incoming regulations, with some leeway for interpretation on the EU’s side to accommodate business interests.
> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are, they would have used the talks to clarify all of these issues and more well in advance of the DMA taking effect.
> But they didn’t because they have caught the tech industry management disease of demanding that reality bend to their ideas and wishes
Can anyone summarize the legalese in English please?
To me this is reading: we’re moving from extortion to racket
That's what it is basically.
"The EU threatened to fine us for our anti-competitive behavior, so we rebranded it in hopes of not getting fined"
[flagged]