Because selling devices is orthogonal to maintaining a marketplace and dozens of APIs for third parties to use, and the latter can be charged for as well.

▲

ksec 5 days ago | parent [-]

If EU doesn't demand for those API to be free, may be Apple could just have terms and cost for those API to be charged? Basically like Lightning adoptor where Apple collects dollars on accessories sold.

I agree on both side some money needs to be exchanged in terms of features and Apple cant have it all to themselves. But currently it doesn't seems both side is listening and no middle ground. One side wants it all for free, the other side dont want their money and wants to keep everything themselves.

▲

shuckles 5 days ago | parent [-]

Apple proposed something like this with their "Core Technology Fee" which the EU commissioners were upset about. They literally do not want to let Apple directly monetize the R&D it takes to produce an application platform.

▲

ksec 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think there is a different in Core Technology Fee and let say Apple Translation Software Fees. One is too broad while another one is specific. Apple could theoretically give away that translation software as bundle of AirPod. And see that software for a cost to other user or third party.

▲

cyberax 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, because this fee was crazy unreasonable (50 cents per app download).

▲

shuckles 5 days ago | parent [-]

Who are you to say what a reasonable price is for Apple’s intellectual property?

▲

dns_snek 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The EU, that's who. The law exists because these policies stifle competition and prevent the proper functioning of the free market and the DMA is a small step to restore the competitive balance.

It's bizarre that you're even framing this conversation in this way - who are you to say how Apple is allowed to behave, and how anti-competitive they deserve to be on the EU market? Are you under the impression that corporations like Apple should wield more power than world governments?

They shouldn't and they don't, but they think they can bully the EU into submission. They wouldn't dare pull this crap in China, they make every concession to be allowed access to the Chinese market. Yet the EU is expected to ask dear Apple for permission to be allowed to regulate their destructive anti-competitive behavior? Insanity.

▲

coldtea 5 days ago | parent [-]

>It's bizarre that you're even framing this conversation in this way - who are you to say how Apple is allowed to behave, and how anti-competitive they deserve to be on the EU market? Are you under the impression that corporations like Apple should wield more power than world governments?

More like that governments shouldn't dictate such terms and let the market decide - they should just prevent collusion and regulatory capture monopolies.

This is the opposite, an organically grown market share.

	▲	rickdeckard 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This is the opposite, an organically grown market share. It was found to be exactly NOT an organically grown market share in Headphones and Smart Watches. The DMA identified that Apple owns a significant portion of the playing field for those market (iOS), and modified them to ensure a competitive advantage ONLY for their brands. This is being rectified now, at least for the EU.
	▲	dns_snek 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> they should just prevent collusion and regulatory capture monopolies. Is there any reason why you're picking your words so carefully as to include "regulatory capture monopolies" but exclude "anti-competitive behavior" as the umbrella term? Regulating anti-competitive behavior is precisely what the EU is doing with the Digital Markets Act. The EU recognizes that a company does not need to be a monopoly to have severely detrimental effects on the free market.

▲

cyberax 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For developers? $0.0 for app publishing. Bandwidth cost for download. We can use AWS egress fees as guidance.

Let's see... How much should Apple pay to the European Union to be allowed to sell devices there? I say 50% of gross income?

▲

shuckles 5 days ago | parent [-]

If we’re posting uneconomic nonsense like it’s Reddit, might as well go big and propose a 99% tax on gross income.

	▲	cyberax 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure. Totally agree. Maybe even transfer the control of Apple to the EU Commission. They violated the law, so they deserve to be properly disciplined for that.