Apple made a decision early on to "give away" the ability to write and distribute (the $100 fee is nothing) apps for their store, and only take payment from payment received. So you have tons of free apps that just exist on Apple's code and infrastructure, with no cost to the companies.
Yes, if the developers want to use Apple's App Store, they should pay for it, that is not the problem. The problem is that developers are forced to use Apple's App Store instead of another distribution platform. But now Apple is saying "Its okay if you want to use another distribution platform, but you still need to pay us". Why is that okay? (And no, an iPhone itself is not Apple's platform, once the user buys the phone, its their platform).
Once the user buys the phone, they own the physical device, but that’s not all they are receiving. They also receive software and services. They don’t own those - they have a license for them.
I think what many people are missing and you're pointing out is that this is a licensing issue. It's no different from Unreal Engine taking a 5% cut of every game sold or Sony taking a cut of all PS games. Developing using iOS libraries and tools requires developers to accept the licensing terms put forward by Apple. There is a lot of precedence for Apple's terms and they are better than most others.
If this is an issue we want to address, then we need software/ip licensing in general to be changed.
You are right, and I don't think the DMA applies only to Apple. If PS does not allow anything from other sources, then Sony will have to change too.
The Unreal example is wrong though, there are other engines to choose from.
> The Unreal example is wrong though, there are other engines to choose from.
There are other phones to chose from also. This is where the rub is. Apple has already successfully argued in the US that the phone and the software and app store are a single entity. Breaking them apart does not make sense.
Instead of paying 5% for the Unreal engine, I only want to pay 2% when I use someone Unity's networking stack. And, if Unreal isn't happy about that, I will petition the government to force them. It may sound odd or absurd, but it's still just a ip/software licensing agreement.
BTW, any PS game sold digital or physical owes Sony a licensing fee (~15% last I saw). So even if Sony is forced to allow other digital stores on the PS, they will likely still demand a licensing fee for each game sold. Where the game comes from is irrelevant, except with physical sales falling under right of first sale doctrine.
> There are other phones to chose from also. This is where the rub is.
Why do certain people always always fall back on this lame response that's not even applicable.
> It may sound odd or absurd
It's indeed absurd. Unity and Unreal Engine are not gatekeepers in any sense of the word. They do not control any market, they simply sell software and services to developers. Game engines are dime a dozen and games switch between different engines surprisingly often.
This regulation addresses business dealings between Apple and developers working with their platform. Developers have a completely free choice of using Unity or Unreal Engine, it doesn't make a lick of difference to anyone except developers and artists working on the game.
Developers do not have a choice of which platform their customers are using, the developer can't "choose Android" because they need to reach users on iOS which makes up half of their customer base.
Not just in the app market, but in any market - hardware products, physical businesses, government services. All of those need to play by Apple's rules if they want to survive. This is what makes Apple the gatekeeper, they have the power to affect technological development of the entire world.
If Apple decided that apps couldn't use NFC, this could potentially hold back modernization of the entire European public transit system. If Apple blocked apps from using certain bluetooth features, this would sink their competitors in the accessories & IoT market.
It's not acceptable for one corporation to essentially hold the world hostage, hence this regulation.
Holding the world hostage is exactly what this is and it already happens, most notably with browsers and how Apple drags their feet on PWAs, making them an non-viable alternative to apps. Consumers don't even notice, because progress which can't happen... doesn't happen, and there's nothing to see. Even if they knew, the app simply doesn't exist and there's nothing they can do about it.
The DMA calls this out, explicitly:
> Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users to reach end users everywhere in the Union and on different markets. The adverse impact of unfair practices on the internal market and the particularly weak contestability of core platform services, including the negative societal and economic implications of such unfair practices, have led national legislators and sectoral regulators to act.
As for:
> Developers can certainly choose Android to develop features that Apple prevents them from doing.
You can't release something like a public transit app only on Android and you know it.
Apple made a decision early on to "give away" the ability to write and distribute (the $100 fee is nothing) apps for their store, and only take payment from payment received. So you have tons of free apps that just exist on Apple's code and infrastructure, with no cost to the companies.