SCOTUS has ruled[0] that use (including implementation) of APIs is fair use, and does not constitute copyright infringement if the author of those APIs wishes to place restrictions on them.
A developer writing an app for iOS can use the APIs provided by Apple without agreeing to license them.
(Granted, you can't get your app into the App Store and onto iPhones/iPads without agreeing to whatever Apple wants you to agree to. Which... is part of the problem.)
Probably not that much considering the past, present and future totals of a 30% cut across all developers lmao. We're talking about a LOT of money here. There's a reason Apple is a "trillion dollar company" and it's not because they're putting in anything even close to as much as they take out.
If it were possible to run unsigned code on the average iDevice (and Apple's framework/drivers disabled for unsigned code) then this would have already been done, a long time ago.
If that one person does it and lets everyone use it, will they do it for free or should they charge for it, perhaps as a percentage of revenue of the developers and applications who use the code?
“Not that much” as in a billion dollars? Ten billion dollars? 100 billion dollars?
Nobody has been able to build a new browser engine in 25 years. So what would be the dollar estimate of a similarly complex UI framework along with high quality device drivers, development tools, services frameworks like iCloud, etc.?
The consumer, who bought the device? Surely the cost of development of said IP is in total recouped from device sales? The device doesn't work without said framework.
The developers who provide a reason to buy the device? Why should they be forced to use a monopolistic platform only because Apple's marketing has successfully clouded consumers' heads?
Humans are terrible at actually boycotting, but I'd love to see what would happen if 90% of app store devs pulled their apps from app stores. Would people buy as many iPhones? Ooooh, now we realise the value proposition that devs are _offering_ Apple, not taking from them.
My guess is users would only notice if a few dozen developers were gone, and the rest of them make apps that are only a little bit better than web apps if that.
Watch and Mac are more or less failed developer platforms (how many native 3rd party apps exist for them?) yet are also both huge businesses just with Apple apps.
Let's see what I have open on my Mac right now: Chrome, Firefox, VSCode, Slack, Teams, Outlook, Spotify, Activity Monitor, TextEdit, Preview, Cura, Docker Desktop.
Of these Apple is only responsible for 2 of them: textedit I could replace with vscode tbf and activity monitor is only open for when the Macbook plays up (constantly) and doesn't even offer remotely useful _aggregate_ stats like "what the fuck is actually consuming all of my memory".
I use Android so let's see what's open on my phone: Ebay, Telegram, Firefox. Hmmm nothing specifically Samsung/Google related. Just because you make a device with an OS doesn't mean you get to charge rent. Flat charge app developers for the minor admin involved in them submitting apps but charging a percentage is a ludicrous anti-consumer money grab. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Google or anybody else.
How have they leveraged this argument against the idea that the user who purchased the device has some level of right to use the IP on the phone they purchase? Phrase this question another way: if I were to write and sell some application for the iPhone through my personal website, which requires users phones to be jailbroken, would my application and business be in violation of, specifically, US intellectual property law? Assuming I perfectly side-step other more obvious illegalities like trademark law.
Here's another caveat: assume the bundle I distribute is dynamically linked into the underlying operating system, such that I'm definitely distributing nothing except my own code that I wrote. Or, similarly: I ship nothing but my own code, plus a script I wrote the purchaser has to run to statically link the package with iOS libraries present on their Mac.
You can publish your iOS source code and let your end-users compile and load the app onto their own devices, and do so without paying any commissions to Apple.
If you were to compile it yourself such that the end-user device would need to be jailbroken because it lacks the necessary digital signatures, IANAL but I think this would be totally fine on your part, and the end-user would be protected by the jail-breaking exception to the DMCA;
> Jailbreaking and Unlocking Smartphones and Tablets
Since 2010, the DMCA has allowed users to jailbreak their smartphones in order to execute lawfully obtained applications unauthorized by the phone manufacturer. Last week’s announcement reaffirmed the rationale that using unapproved applications on smartphones is fair use and limiting users’ ability to execute such applications hinders choice and impairs innovation.
Your customers can't actually do this without downloading XCode and agreeing to its license agreements. Just downloading XCode is an impossible ask, to say nothing of compiling and deploying to a phone.
Somehow it's not unreasonable for third parties to "use" another company's IP when designing aftermarket accessories for physical products, even when those base products themselves are patented.
What makes the iOS situation different? Aren't apps essentially "digital accessories"?
Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP.
It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.