This point was never raised in any of those cases. Apple just did aome hand-waving "IP compensation" justification and everyone just went along with it, because the case wasn't about that particular point.
> Apple itself has to pay license fees for some technologies in iPhone
And such costs are more than made up for by hardware sales. The only reason this persists is because of greed, not because it's essential to profitability.
> and those licenses do not automatically extend to third-party developers via the consumer. It's not a license agreement with the consumer.
They don't need to extend them because the consumer is already entitled to use those technologies merely by having purchased the device. That entitlement comes from the fact that they get legal copies of the technologies when they take posession of the hardware. IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation. IP compensation was essential in both of these cases, and everyone went along with it because they didn't dispute Apple's rights.
> IP rights regulate distribution, not consumption.
It's all about distribution.
A consumer can download Xcode, build their own app, install the app on their own device, and use Apple API, all for free. What they can't do is distribute that app to other consumers.
The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything.
> As for the rest of your comment, the overall problem is the requiremet to deal with Apple at all, the $99 fee and the 5% commission are just the cherry on top.
This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
I was referring to the distribution of the licensed technologies by Apple to the hardware purchasers. Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
> This doesn't answer my question. I asked which fee needed to be waived. There is no fee to get Xcode, so there's nothing to be waived by opting out.
The waiver scenario is meant in the context of Apple using the 5% and $99 fees as payment for the maintenance/R&D of the official dev experience. The fees would be waived because the dev isn't making any use of those tools in a hypothetical FOSS SDK.
I know. My point was that distribution of the licensed technology by Apple to iPhone purchasers does not thereby allow third-party iPhone app developers to distribute their iPhone app executables to other iPhone purchasers.
> Returning to your own interpretation though, the hypothetical community SDK wouldn't contain proprietary code, so the distribution aspect is solved there. It's the same principle by which homebrew game console scenes work, or how you can build Windows software on Linux without touching any Microsoft code.
You appear to be focused on the building of iPhone apps. I'm focused on the distribution of built iPhone apps. This is why I said, "The developer tools are relatively unimportant, which is why Apple gives them away. Distribution is everything."
In general, consumers are unwilling or unable to build their own apps. They need precompiled executables, distributed by third parties, to easily install on their devices. The hypothetical FOSS SDK is a red herring. I don't see how the consumer's right to use the iPhone automatically grants a legal right for third-party developers to distribute executables using Apple's licensed technology. There are other consumer products that allow personal use but don't allow redistribution.