The full exchange between @rileytestut and Apple's Kyle Andeer re the Core Technology Fee, since the full context is important (and I see nothing telling me I can't/shouldn’t post clips from the stream, so… 
)
I dumped the 8 hour VOD into MacWhisper to generate a transcript for the entire EU/Apple DMA compliance workshop today so that you can search through it. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the transcription, but it's a lot better than nothing!
https://gist.github.com/steventroughtonsmith/d393e13a2b0a3e41e69724b328a8b04c
“Let me walk through the new process for interoperability requests in more detail.
First, we conduct an initial assessment to examine whether the request falls within the scope of the DMA.
As just one example, requests for features that don't already exist in iOS aren't within scope, so please don't use this process to ask us to turn the iPhone into a jetpack.”
LOL
"I think the third question related to direct distribution of iOS apps over the web.
Obviously, we are much more concerned about this channel of distribution.
Our original plans did not include the ability to enable this form of distribution under the DMA.
We were forced to reconsider that option and introduce it later this spring.”
“Our users and developers send us thousands of pieces of feedback every day.
They tell us what they understand, they tell us what they don't understand.
They're not shy about it.
They send emails to Tim Cook on anything that they have a concern about.
[inaudible snark re whether Tim actually reads them]
He does!
He sends them to us and it changes our day in terms of how we're doing stuff.”
"Some have asked whether all developers will have access to interoperability solutions that Apple develops based on a DMA request, or if that's something that's going to be limited to the developer who made that request.
The answer is that, as a general principle, access will be generally available for use in the EU.
That said, some interoperability solutions may be available through, and subject to, managed entitlements.”
(contd. re app interoperability requests) ”We've heard questions about whether these functionalities will also be made available elsewhere in the world, and there may be cases where we offer new solutions on a broader basis or offer them incrementally in other jurisdictions after evaluating our experience in the EU.”
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut What’s the name of the representative from Apple speaking there?
@dgriffinjones @rileytestut that is Kyle Andeer
@stroughtonsmith I’m predisposed to want to get annoyed at all this, but actually, I thought that answer from Apple was pretty darn reasonable. Well, when taken at face value, anyway.
Unsurprisingly, @rileytestut handled his side very well too.
@caseyliss @rileytestut that's why I posted the video; it's real easy to get wires crossed with text
@stroughtonsmith @caseyliss @rileytestut I listened to it, and I couldn't find the answer from Apple, only "need to get this right", which basically means, they will change this maybe. Would they waiver 5 million or not?
@Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @caseyliss @rileytestut same. Nice words but no real commitment.
@ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut If they don't have anything to declare, they're not going to commit beyond what was stated.
@caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut Absolutely correct, but it also means they sort of half-assed their DMA proposal as I think this issue was generally recognized extremely quickly and Apple either missed it or chose not to care…
ehs @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut my problem with this isn’t really the non-committal per say, but the assumption that the CTF is at all reasonable. If the CTF didn’t exist, these edge cases would not require consideration
@eb @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut
That’s the thing - there’s a real argument to be made that the ‘Core Tech Fee’ is already paid for…by the consumer when they buy the phone & the yearly subscription fee to become a developer.
Imagine there were competing operating systems & developer toolkits on the iphone, how much could they get away with charging?
@jamesjm Exactly. The only honest answer would be: "We just came up with this fee to discourage everyone from trying to use alternative stores."
Otherwise it would beg the question: How many ruined lives Apple considers statistically significant then?
This just shows how far from reality some people are. The Core Tech Fee is Apple's invention, there's nothing special about iOS warranting it. No other OS would dare.
@eb @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut
@jamesjm @eb @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut By the way, Apple did get a question similar to this at the workshop.
"I mean, from our perspective, as we approach each new iPhone, each new iOS, we're actually building a brand new product and then making it as easy as possible for third party developers to take advantage of everything we've built into that product.
It is a massive engineering effort, incredibly complex, and takes an incredible amount of time."
@jamesjm @eb @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut Here's the relevant clip, I didn't want to cut anything in the middle but it's the second question.
@sbeve @jamesjm @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut thanks for the clip though. I hope eventually the full thing is released
@sbeve @jamesjm @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut I’m calling bs. They don’t rewrite iOS from scratch every year. In fact, they don’t rewrite it at all. Everything is built upon layers of cruft dating back to NeXT. I’m sure there is a huge amount of work every year, but that’s needed to keep even hw competitive. Android does fine without CTF.
@Ciantic @billvinson @jamesjm @caseyliss @ruisan @rileytestut @eb @stroughtonsmith More importantly macOS does just fine without CTF as well and it also allows for distribution outside the app store and it's doing just fine
@sbeve @jamesjm @billvinson @caseyliss @ruisan @Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut obviously they’re just saying whatever they think will help with the regulators. They aren’t exactly known to be forthcoming
@Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @caseyliss @rileytestut
I listened to the response and to be honest, saw this as a non-answer. This very point has been raised by many people, including the podcast. It’s not an edge-case, it’s one of the fundamental cases. The fact that Apple managed to work through the individual payment options for each of the steps and didn’t consider the cost to free apps doesn’t seem feasible.
@Ciantic @stroughtonsmith @caseyliss @rileytestut The all-too-obvious answer to this problem is for Apple to say: "If you're not making money on it, we aren't either."
@stroughtonsmith @caseyliss @rileytestut I really hope someone would ask why does Apple feel they are entitled to charge this fee when the third party apps are partially the reason why iPhone becomes commercially successful 
:verified: @caseyliss @khaost @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut I get it…. But also they could be entitled to say without the iPhone there would not be those third party apps. It’s all a mess. Because everyone has a valid point to bring to the table.
@Actionscientist @caseyliss @khaost @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut But double also, 37% margins on $1500 phones. Apple is getting theirs, thanks to third party developers' software making the device look so so good.
No one wants a $1500 device with Calendar.
@maddox @caseyliss @khaost @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut not saying third party devs aren’t bring something to the table. We don’t have this information because we don’t have access to it but how many devices do run Calendar and other first party apps? (I do… I’ve tried the third party apps and I always end back there). What I mean is it’s a dangerous road to assume what we tech folks do is what everyone does.
@stroughtonsmith @caseyliss @rileytestut people read them with the voice they want it to be read with. Fat cat chortling, or a California surfer “whatever”.
It’s always a problem, and seeing the video helps us remember “we’re all ppl”, albeit with different goals.
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut this was a great exchange and exactly what needs to happen more going forward
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut Damn, it’s like when you put everyone in the same room, they all become much more reasonable.
(Also: Kyle and Riley should probably talk more about why emulation should be allowed in the App Store.)
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut freeware is not something you figure out after the fact if you’re making a platform for enthusiasts. It’s something you leave for later if you’re only thinking about money. Can’t put it simpler than that.
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut thank you posting this clip. Great to see the discourse.
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut hey! I know that guy!
@b3ll @stroughtonsmith seems like a dork tbh
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut @markgurman Not much of an answer at all unfortunately.
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut so basically hes saying that you (as a kid) can still do a viral app ON THE APP STORE, but in your case you want it published in an AAM were still working on a Solution on these ”Edge Cases“.
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut @imyke Isn’t there still the option for the developer to stay under the existing arrangement - the ‘traditional’ model? If so, there wouldn’t be a charge for freeware.
@DaveRyder @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut @imyke true. Though in this particular case, Riley can’t release its app in the App Store, since emulators aren’t allowed.
My guess is that they just thought “well, if you’re making a free app, just stay in the Store, and you won’t have any problem”, without thinking about the possible free apps that currently aren’t allowed on the App Store like, e.g. emulators. Which kinda makes sense, but it’s at the very least short sighted.
@fmarini Oh. I see. Thanks Francesco. @stroughtonsmith @rileytestut @imyke
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut Notice he explains what Apple did, they broke apart their single App Store model and are putting a cost on each part. This is why they’re in the hurt they are right now. The MBAs and bean counters can’t separate financial income from each piece. This is a major shortcoming of current operational drivers. It’s straight up not good for business either. It doesn’t look at the human element.
@stroughtonsmith @imyke @rileytestut Thanks Steve - much appreciated.
@stroughtonsmith so much amazing feedback > /dev/null
@stroughtonsmith I remember reading once that Steve would often get emails with feedback and sometimes these were passed on too. Imagine the volume Steve and Tim would have gotten…
@stroughtonsmith Yeah, you’d want to go through the normal feature request process for that.
@stroughtonsmith if you could somehow share that VOD that would be great! Seems like a good incentive to finally build that integrated video player view!
@jordibruin Don't let it distract you from Speaker Diarization! 
Which would allow me to transcribe So. Many. Meetings.
@oelna @jordibruin both are worked on at the same time ;)
@stroughtonsmith Safari on an iPad really doesn’t like that page….
@stroughtonsmith Thanks for making this available! Very useful.
@stroughtonsmith what if Apple made a secondary 
AppStore with no fees, no payment processor, no app hosting, automated security only app review, and no restrictions? Would we still want third party app stores?
Obviously it would off by default and have a bunch of scare screens before a user could use it.
@stroughtonsmith @rileytestut
never seen someone take that long to shrug