Traditionally, it was very much paid.

Compilers, SDKs, documentation, every vendor charged for those.

You have to thank Stallman et al. for your free C compiler.

Dev tools were often paid, true, but not necessarily to the OS vendor.

What Apple has done here is bring the console gaming model to general-purpose computing devices. I believe the EU wishes to roll that back and will probably not allow Apple's announced fees and restrictions.

And Apple already charges for those through their $100 annual developer program fee. They can't just make up arguments about how that's not really for developer tools because it happens to suit their agenda.

Quote from their own website:

> By enrolling in the Apple Developer Program, individuals and organizations receive everything they need to develop apps for distribution.

“To develop apps for distribution.” It doesn’t say the fee covers distribution - only development.

Apple won't be the one distributing them, alternative app stores are, that's the point.

Besides, Apple never claimed their new fee was for distribution, but for "core platform services", i.e. the SDK and tools, which they're already charging for.

Where do they say ‘core platform service’ are the SDK and tools? I think you’re just making that up.

Here: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

> The Core Technology Fee (CTF) is an element of the new business terms in the European Union (EU) that reflects the value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users around the world.

"Core platform services" is the term used by the EU.

I think you’ve shown the flaw in your own reasoning then. “Ongoing investments in tools, technologies, and services…”

It’s not just the SDK.

Is that supposed to be a gotcha? Yes, there's ongoing investment, that's why developers have to pay an ongoing, annual fee.

Someone always pays for the cost to develop and maintain the OS. In the Windows model it's the user. In the iOS model it's the app developer. I don't find the argument that either is superior particularly compelling, and certainly don't see a reason for legislators to be involved in dictating which model a particular company should use.

OSs are expensive things to build and maintain, and I don't take for granted the fact that my iPhone XS Max (2018) is running the latest version if iOS. If Apple's App Store pricing structure makes that possible, then it's certainly working for me.

Except users already pay for the cost of the OS when they buy the phone.

They pay for updates indefinitely? That's not very sustainable for the business is it? To justify continued investment in backwards compatibility and security patches, a business needs an ongoing source of revenue.

According to whom?

Appeal to tradition isn’t a beneficial argument, which is why it’s considered a fallacy.

It crumbles under the most benign forms of scrutiny.

The comment below already pointed out that vendors charged for all kinds of stuff. Your reply seems to suggest that, for some reason, you’re ok with that, but not if the OS vendor does it.

There’s also the argument that investment in frameworks for iOS is significantly higher than, say, the investment Microsoft made into frameworks for Windows back in the day.

Then there’s the general criticism of an appeal to tradition that there were many traditions that we currently aren’t ok with, and an appeal to tradition suggests that they are inherently good just by virtue of once having been a tradition.

I remember a tradition not too long ago where console manufacturers would charge thousands just for access to the platform and the IP (sometimes rolled into the price of a dev kit), plus thousands more for each build that needed certification plus a commission on sales.

It was so cumbersome for some developers that they did not bother updating their game[0].

Even later on, with lower fees, there’s still a lot of cost to get games published[1].

Now, you might say that consoles are nothing like iPhones, and I will respond by saying that iPhones are nothing like Macs. And on and on we might go.

What matters is what is legal. Apple is in the clear to charge for usage of their IP, even when they use differential pricing and even when other companies are willing to give away their work for free because they see other avenues of revenue by doing so.

Further down, you state:

> I believe the EU wishes to roll that back and will probably not allow Apple's announced fees and restrictions.

Can I ask what fuels that belief? Or perhaps more importantly, what fuels the belief that they are at all in the position to do something about it?

I see a lot of “Wait till your dad comes home” style comments every time Apple is brought up as if there’s some collective amnesia that “dad” also has to stick to the law and doesn’t have the final say in this universe.

The European Parliament and Council of the European Union are the legislative bodies of the EU, and as such, they can create laws. But like any legislative body, they are limited and need to move within the bounds of the laws.

The European Commission, on the other hand, functions as the executive body of the EU and is to enforce the law. They, too, are limited by the bounds of the law.

Neither the DMA nor its enforcement have been tested in court yet. All of that will start once the EC tries to enforce something, and the EC has, at best, a mixed track record before the court.

Apple made a smart move today because, contrary to what many here think, they went above and beyond the DMA requirements (e.g., it has no price regulation, so all the discounts in fees are freebies), and as such, took the wind out of the EC’s legal argument sails for many of the potential arguments.

The biggest hurdle that one needs to overcome is IP and property rights. Something neither the EU nor the US wants to tackle because it would have significant effects across all commerce. The idea that you can just take a company’s IP and essentially make it public domain will never fly.

At best, in sporadic instances, can you get a court to agree that a company should be forced to charge “reasonable” fees, but with Apple’s fee structure for the EU being less than that of the rest of the markets and and option to evade all but one fee, it’s nearly impossible to convince a court that the CTF is somehow out of line.

Ironically, as I write this, I just realized that an upfront fee for IP usage that is entirely decoupled from revenue is actually very traditional when it comes to fees like this.

The general timeline from investigating violations to ECJ is about ten years, so this will take a while.

0: https://www.destructoid.com/fez-patch-wont-be-fixed-because-...

1: https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/30/launching-indie-game...

> Appeal to tradition isn’t a beneficial argument, which is why it’s considered a fallacy.

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy in logic, but laws are not made using pure logic. Laws are made when some group with sufficient political power wants them to be made, and such groups are often driven by tradition, what they perceive to be tradition.

> Or perhaps more importantly, what fuels the belief that they are at all in the position to do something about it?

The European Union is a government; it makes and enforces laws. In this case, it has made a law called the Digital Markets Act which addresses certain types of gatekeeping behavior by large tech companies including Apple. Some readings of this law I've seen forbid Apple from charging fees for distributing apps outside its store and from using any legal workarounds to circumvent that prohibition. It remains to be seen how EU regulators and courts will interpret it.

Your comment makes several references to "IP", but isn't clear about what IP is involved. Is it necessary to use inventions patented by Apple to write an app that runs on an iPhone? Is it necessary to know Apple's trade secrets (aside from things like signing keys that exist for the sole purpose of gatekeeping)? Does it require making copies of things Apple holds copyright to?

> Laws are made when some group with sufficient political power wants them to be made, and such groups are often driven by tradition, what they perceive to be tradition.

This can certainly be a motivator.

In Europe, and the EU in particular, many individual member states as well as the EU itself have the tradition of including an explanatory memorandum when passing new laws.

The function of this is to explain the mindset of the legislators and the motivation behind a law. It is sometimes used by courts to gain clarity on laws that might be a bit more ambiguous in their intent.

Below is a link to the explanatory memorandum of the DMA.

I wasn’t able to find a reference to traditions on regarding licensing fees, or monetization of IP.

But you’re welcome to point me in the right direction.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...

> Some readings of this law I've seen forbid Apple from charging fees for distributing apps outside its store and from using any legal workarounds to circumvent that prohibition. It remains to be seen how EU regulators and courts will interpret it.

Could you point me to these readings, or better yet the specific articles that these readings are based on?

To the best of my knowledge the DMA has little in the way of price regulation. So this is news to me.

> Your comment makes several references to "IP", but isn't clear about what IP is involved.

The IP in question would be code written by Apple provided in the form of frameworks, SDKs, APIs and the like. There’s also the use of software like Xcode, but for the sake of simplicity let’s stick with code written by Apple.

Creating an app by definition makes use of this IP. IP I’m sure will have cost a considerable amount to develop by Apple, so I can see why they’re eager to get payment for it or, alternatively, strategically decide who can use it for free.

Trade secrets aren’t really involved in this and neither is copying, at least not in most cases.

> The IP in question would be code written by Apple provided in the form of frameworks, SDKs, APIs and the like. There’s also the use of software like Xcode, but for the sake of simplicity let’s stick with code written by Apple.

Code generally falls under copyright. Copyright means that making copies requires permission from the owner. Installing and using XCode, for example involves making a copy of XCode, and Apple charges a subscription fee for the privilege. Distributing an iPhone app that statically links Apple libraries is also making copies of Apple's copyrighted code, which requires permission. Dynamic linking to libraries present in the OS, however does not involve distributing copies of them and does not require permission.

Distributing an iPhone app built with open source tools and libraries would not involve copying Apple's code. There aren't many iPhone apps built this way right now as far as I know because App Store rules require the use of Apple's tools, but the DMA requires that apps can be installed from other sources and do not need to comply with those rules.

The other options for IP are trade secrets, trademarks, and patents. Only patents seem likely to support a fee for distributing any app that can run on a certain device, but I don't think Apple has a patent with that effect.

This is just wrong. Historically application platforms charged for developer tools and support. You had to buy new tools regularly to access new OS features and you had to pay for documentation or human support. The commission model just flipped the fee structure, which is arguably better for everyone because the upfront costs were a barrier to entry and disincentivized free apps.