According to the FSF, the distribution of a binary computer program which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would require you to abide by the terms of the GPL license.

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.

To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?

> which substantially relies upon GPL libraries is considered a derivative work and would be a GPL violation if it's distributed without source code.

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.

Thank you, I did err in how I described the GPL. I have edited my post to correct this.

> 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.

> To the people down-voting this, I realise that my post espouses a controversial opinion for Hacker News. But could you please explain what you disagree with?

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.

My apologies, when I said "whatever terms they want" I was being somewhat hyperbolic, even if I do think the spirit of the sentence is clear when read in context. Obviously terms of any such license cannot violate law.

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?

> 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.

Microsoft Visual Studio was not free in the past. And even now free version is limited. I don’t see it different from hypothetical paid Apple library as long as there are other ways to write software for the given platform.

Is your argument that anyone who builds a device which runs software is required to ensure that an entirely free way to develop software for it exists? That makes no sense.

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.

I can see the argument by analogy to GPL, but I don't think this is about software licensing in practice.

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.

You cannot develop an app for iOS without using Apple's libraries.

Of course you can, there's nothing sacred in Apple's libraries. The only sacred thing is system calls, but it's more like API rather than library.

Yes, there is: they are the only things that know how to talk to the OS in a stable way. There’s no other way to write apps for iOS.

There are plenty of alternative app stores for Android. Google restricts them, but not severely. Android 12 will lift some important restrictions from alternative app stores.

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 allegedly forced Android OEMs to not ship devices with a pre-installed Fortnite / Epic Games Store launcher.

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.

Not only the technical hurdles but also the legal ones need to be significantly lower.

Google has enormous power over phone suppliers and can force them to preinstall their apps and store and nothing else.

While true, they wouldn't be so generous if they were making it on the backend via search. They don't care that much what store the user uses as long as they search on Google. Do they offer any "user freedom" there?

Google does make more money from other revenue sources, but I don't think this is the best example. Chrome (on all platforms) allows the user to set any custom search engine as the default. On the other hand, Safari limits users to four choices: Google, Yahoo, Bing, and DuckDuckGo.

Apple and Google won't know what developers using outside payment systems for purchases such as subscriptions or "in-app" stuff are making. So they'd have a problem deciding what a publishing fee should be. Monikers such as popularity can be bad estimators. They might end up charging developers a lot less or a lot more - the latter of which might ruin some developers or hike prices for customers even more.

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...

> Apple and Google won't know what developers using outside payment systems for purchases such as subscriptions or "in-app" stuff are making.

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.

>Then again, why should Apple and Google charge fees for something they have no hand in?

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.

> there isn't an explicit publishing fee

I remember paying $25 or so to open a google play developer account. For Apple, you pay $99 yearly.

Give it a few days then check this link: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/recentlyLawList.do

A publishing fee would also be regressive compared to the payment tax. Right now, people don't pay until they are successful, at which point they may pay a LOT. But it keeps the app marketplace much more of a free marketplace.

It’s not exactly a publishing fee, but today you have to pay Apple $99/year to distribute software into Apple’s ecosystem; otherwise they’ll hide your application behind a non-obvious ctrl+click+run flow. To my knowledge, this fee is collected regardless of your distribution channel.

I wouldn’t call $99/year “not paying.”

> The $99/year is predominantly for access to the App Store. It's up to Apple what constitutes a license fee for developers to have commercial use of Apple's proprietary software libraries.

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

It is hypothesised that the main reason Apple persists with the $99/year fee is as a glorified CAPTCHA, to stop developers from mechanically creating account after account in order to upload scummy app after scummy app. If that's the reason, I wouldn't entirely blame them.

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.

I’m not sure I agree. In order to distribute my Electron app to Mac users via a direct download from my website, I must pay Apple $99. Otherwise Apple will present my users with a scare dialogue that gives the impression the software can’t be run.

>It's their code, it's up to them.

Well, until the regulators step in (again).

Are you suggesting that regulators can force Apple to give away their stuff for free if they want to participate in that market? That doesn't sound right to me.

The thought that a government could force your favorite, richest, international megacorporation might feel not right to you, but that is actually how the world works. Apple does not get to dictate how its products are available, no matter how much they would like to.

They are free, however to not come sell in places it feels the rules are unfair towards it.

You seem to be making a weird argument. Obviously Apple isn't allowed to sell a smartphone that contains a large chunk of plutonium, or that is fake and doesn't actually contain any electronics. There are limits to what corporations can do.

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.

No no no no. I'm making the argument that if the people of Ohgodplsnoistan pass a law that forbids Apple to sell their phone for anything above $200, that is legal. And that Apple can either cry and sell to my population of two people, or exit this market. In the same way, the government of Plsnoistan decides what is a legal license and what is not. Hell, I can pass a law that requires Apple to give out a free cookie to anyone buying one of their phones.

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.

No, Apple is free to stop operating in countries with such regulators. No business activity => No violation of competition-related regulations.

Yes, regulators can do that, and they would have pretty clear antitrust grounds to do it as well.

The difference between random people using the GPL and Apple is that Apple is worth a trillion dollars. That matters quite a bit.

Antitrust regulators don't care about the size of the trusts they're meant to regulate? Interesting.