Lets say that the government and DWD developed equivalent apps but DWD did it at half the cost. If the government app has to charge users based on its costs, then it will be twice as expensive, and lose out to the more efficient private company. But if they are just allowed to give it out to consumers for free (which a private company can't do) then it will dominate the market even though it is not the best use of resources. I assume that is the rationale for this law.

There is another analogy to this: Meteoblue. [1]

Maybe they can similarly spin off the weather app into a company with some kind of status that retains some of its original purpose (which I guess is supplying weather information to German nationals).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteoblue

If you meant DWD (=government) did it at double the cost, then this makes sense.

I believe travisoneill1 was confusing the government weather service DWD with the firm filing the suit, WetterOnline.

Maybe. Not legal expert, but if I remember well, they public broadcasting services were sued (?) for having to many paid commercials.

So I could at least imagine the DWD being attacked if they sell their app for 10 cents or so.

Well if they do it for cheaper, won't it as well open them up to the same 'unfair advantage' accusations?

> DWD is to offer a cheaper and better product.

How? Their product is "free", unless you count taxes. They could make it "cheaper" by keeping it free and not using taxes.