So Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an Apple-run review process and they will keep charging developers fees[1], even when distributing through alternative stores. In fact, it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install after the installed base passes 1M (updates count as "installs").
They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-run.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide. Clearly they feel that their service doesn't justify the fees in a competitive market (even though any competition will be minimal with the anticompetitive measures they're still clinging to in these changes).
The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or browser engines.
[1] On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple.
The notarization is the worst part. Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives.
I hope the EU brings the hammer down on them. It's obvious, in my opinion, the goal here is to make the EU version as bad as possible so Apple can "prove" regulation is bad for developers and users.
I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side. I thought the app store would flop when they announced they'd gatekeep distribution, but here we are. I'm sure there will be plenty of developers claiming this current development is good for everyone.
It seems so obvious that all the platform owners are working against everyone (developers, advertisers, users) and I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.
Yes in my view this is really obvious punishment and the EU should increase the pressure on Apple. Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics, let's see who has the longer arm. For all I care we can remove Apple devices entirely in the EU. People who want an Apple device can import it "illegally" then.
> Don't be afraid of US companies and their bully tactics
You might disagree with Apple's move, but all the EU has is power. Apple provides value, from which it derives money. The EU is combatting it not with an environment that allows competitors to arise. It's combatting value with power.
Let me give you one example of some EU provided value:
"ASML is the only company in the world that makes a specific machine needed to make the most advanced chips. Apple couldn’t make iPhone chips without this one machine from the Netherlands’ biggest company. ASML doesn’t just shape the Dutch economy — it shapes the entire world economy."
Apple could cease to exist today and the world wouldn't lose much except some overpriced gadgets. Couldn't say the same for ASML. And that's just one example.
ASML is floated on a small EU stock exchange, and also NASDAQ. NASDAQ is what allows them to scale and become enormous and keep their position, other than IP laws on their techniques. I'm not saying the EU can't produce companies; I'm saying that, in this case, if it were good at it they wouldn't need to float in the US to scale.
Regardless, the point is that the EU has zero muscle when it comes to building out consumer-facing software. All it knows how to do is regulate.
The EU's answer to AI? To nuke its only successful AI startup, Mistral, with the AI Act [1]. They had to gerrymander an exception in for Mistral.
The EU pretends to care about consumer privacy and then introduces Article 45, completely destroying web security and privacy [2] more than Meta/Apple/etc ever could.
Fundamentally, the EU does not understand what it is doing. It is a broken clock that is right twice a day. All it has demonstrated is the ability to rent-seek and grift from international tech companies, while enacting protectionist laws that conveniently avoid its own (few) companies. Why isn't Spotify targeted by the DMA? Who knows!?
You can say "it doesn't matter, follow our laws!" Okay. But don't be surprised when your TLS communications are being MITM'd by the EU and when companies maliciously comply with these ridiculous laws. The EU can only push things so far, and miss out on so many "industrial revolutions", before it becomes an irrelevant/unprofitable market, impossible to build for.
This situation is like if the majority of the EU's transportation infrastructure (e.g. roads, train tracks, etc.) were owned by a handful of private American companies. Whatever value they provide (maybe it's really good infrastructure), their power comes from their overwhelming dominance and control of these sectors of the economy (i.e. transportation/tech). Don't act as though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party.
> Don't act as though Apple is some powerless and altruistic party.
If you have to straw man, what's the point? I'm not mentioning altruism. They provide value; they get money. The second they stop providing value, they have no money.
That's different to power. A bureacrat can write some words and suddenly phones can't be sold any more. That's power.
Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between Apple writing some words and suddenly, you have to pay a fee for distribution of iPhone apps on non-Apple app stores, and say, a government writing some words and suddenly, foreign imports have to pay extra taxes. Neither is generating value; they're both rent-seeking in those examples. They both have power because of what's "theirs".
Alternately, you could say neither has any power, and both provide value. The government provides value by funding public infrastructure, promoting economic development, protecting citizens from foreign invasion, and so on. If citizens don't like it, they can vote the government out (though it would be different if it were a dictatorship).
In my original comment, I was basically irritated by you implying Apple has no "power," and that they can only counter the government's power through "value," i.e., making people's lives better somehow. It's insinuating Apple derives no power from their business, and that Apple provides value for no reason (hence the use of the word "altruism").
> Alternately, you could say neither has any power, and both provide value. The government provides value by funding public infrastructure, promoting economic development, protecting citizens from foreign invasion, and so on. If citizens don't like it, they can vote the government out (though it would be different if it were a dictatorship).
This is the problem, though. If Apple starts doing a bad job, they will lose all their sales. So they have to constantly re-earn customers, and keep making it worthwhile for developers to build for their platform. Their product is a bit sticky, but not very.
The EU - well, the EU doesn't do some of the stuff you list, but even if it did, you can't vote it out. You might be able to vote for your local EU representative, but that's about it, and it's an incredibly weak signal.
More simply: Apple provides value, which people will chase. If value stops, Apple will fail. So it needs to keep providing value for people to keep opting in. The EU's regulatory influence ultimately derives from the threat of sanctions and imprisonment. That's power, because you can't opt out.
If the EU does a bad job, or is particularly bad for one country, those citizens can vote to leave the EU. Several parties in EU member countries advocate for this [0], but those parties aren't popular, and so far, only the UK has withdrawn.
If the EU stops being a good place to do business, then international corporations like Apple will stop doing business there, and/or dissatisfied members will withdraw from the EU. The economic growth of EU nations will decline, their citizens' quality of life will decline, and they'll lose influence in international politics. The same applies to individual national governments; it's just that national governments in the EU are betting on the EU's success, not its decline.
> More simply: Apple provides value, which people will chase. If value stops, Apple will fail. So it needs to keep providing value for people to keep opting in. The EU's regulatory influence ultimately derives from the threat of sanctions and imprisonment. That's power, because you can't opt out.
Apple can opt out by not doing business in the EU. The EU provides value by creating a unified economic zone between European member states.
You can't do business without enforcing copyright, property rights, and enforcing the law through a state monopoly on violence. All governments provide value for corporations by supporting them like this; corporations exist because the state, and the people represented by the state, want them to exist, because they're already an artificial construct that the state uses violence and imprisonment to support (and to be clear, I'm not against corporations existing; I'm not a communist). The fact that they have the ability to use their economic influence to prevent competition from arising is only there because they rely on state power to exist. State violence and Apple's degree of control over the market are inseparable.
So it makes complete sense for a state to regulate the actions of a corporation to benefit their people; international corporations do business in other countries because it's mutually beneficial for the corporation and the people of that country.
> If the EU does a bad job, or is particularly bad for one country, those citizens can vote to leave the EU.
This is an insanely weak and laggy signal. As soon as iPhones drop slightly in quality, some people will start switching, and more will follow. That is a much better signal. And that's why Apple need to constantly re-win their customers' business, and keep doing a good job. That is a precise and rapid signal.
> The EU provides value by creating a unified economic zone between European member states.
This isn't quite right. The EU also threatens value prevention by holding hostage all of the EU's citizens as potential customers. I would argue that's far more of a threat of value reduction than the small value add of having a unified economic zone. Apple sells just fine all over the world. The threat isn't "pay us fines or you'll have to deal with our member states individually". It's "pay us fines or you can't sell in the EU."
This seems like a positive for users. Notarized apps are signed apps that have been evaluated (albeit simply) for malicious code. If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance.
I realize a lot of this stuff is annoying for developers. And yes, a fair bit of this stuff is clearly intended to discourage developers from choosing to distribute outside the iOS App store.
> I've never understood how developers think Apple is on their side...
> ...I just can't understand how they have so many supporters.
Apple built a platform that a lot of people make their living from. They made something appealing to users and allowed developers to sell to those users.
There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user. Apple (and some users, and some developers) don't view it that way.
> There are a lot of developers who look at the iPhone as just another Von Neumann machine: I should be able to do whatever I like, however I like and Apple shouldn't be part of the picture after they sold the phone to the user.
I don’t view the iPhone as a Von Neumann machine: I view it as a product that I bought.
Out of all of the physical goods in my home, I am hard-pressed to think of any that require an exclusive ongoing relationship with the original manufacturer.
The piano tuner makes a living because companies design and manufacture pianos, but I do not see anyone arguing that he ought to pay fees to the designer because they “allowed” him to sell me that service.
> If an app is notarized, the code executing is from who it says it is, and at least has been given a once over. That's appealing to me as a user, and I'm willing to ask the developer to exchange a little convenience for that assurance.
I don’t have a problem with identity verification and code signing. It’s the gatekeeping that I don’t agree with. I think it damages the low end of the market because it makes it too difficult for small developers to build and sell custom line of business apps.
All of the enterprise ish methods for deploying custom apps are pretty burdensome in the small business space and it’s risky to develop an app without being able to guarantee it can be deployed and used long term.
I’ve written tiny, one-off apps for small businesses that are more than 10 years old and still being used. That’s virtually impossible to do in the iOS ecosystem.
iOS developer here. As long as you make < $1M/year their cut is 15%, which is absolutely worth it considering the quality of the App Store and payment experience and the fact that iOS users actually pay unlike Android. When I hit that 30% fee, however, I’m not going to be so stoked.
Exactly. To give an example, on macOS there is the mac app store. But over time other distribution platforms such as SetApp [0] have emerged.
But developers can actually enlist their apps in both of these "stores" (setapp is subscription based) which probably increases their potential revenue.
Consider the context. There are alternatives (Android, and everyone else in the mobile space that tried and didn't make it), and as orasis pointed out, the users there aren't that keen on making purchases.
> The valuable target is "iphone users" not "app store users".
As an actual "iPhone user", I personally am going to be extremely reluctant to install things from outside the app store, let alone pay for anything. I don't think Apple's rules or the 30% cut are fair, but they did something nobody else in that space seems to be able to: they built trust.
> They're only the same because apple forbids competition with itself.
The competition is either dead, or is Google. If you'd like to blame anyone, you should blame Apple and Google for working together to establish an oligopoly.
I don't think Apple will let go of taking some sort of a cut (and seeing where things are going, they will fight for each and every % with their claws and fangs) - and I think in all fairness it is justified to an extent, building and maintaining the platform has an inherent cost and in worst case they will somehow pass this cost onto their users. Alright, got an iPhone? $10/mo, or you can't install any apps at all.
I don't think a hypothetical Amazon, Google, Meta, or Epic store for iOS won't take a significant cut of their own - after all, again, maintaining a platform is work, and they won't do it pro bono (or they will, somehow again at the user's expense, see how Meta loooves to abuse their users as if they were the products).
I'm just speculating based on what seems to be Apple's apparent priorities, they tend to put Apple first, users second, third parties third; while other companies seem to have the latter two swapped around.
We wouldn’t drop our prices for an alternate store - we already know the user’s willingness to pay - we would either increase our margin or increase our ad spend at the same margin. The big winners here would be developers and Google/Facebook.
Ok and where is that ad spend going to direct people to go? To the store with the 30% tax or the store with the 5% tax?
You say you wouldn't drop your prices because you know what people are willing to pay as a counter argument to saying that lowering prices would incentivize people to shop at other stores while also stating that selling at other stores would increase your margin. Well, sounds like if you want to get that bigger margin, you should lower your prices to attract people to the lower tax store.
I know the Android vs. iOS conversion rates first hand for many years. Working for a large US fashion company that had >50% of transactions online, the conversion rates for Android were comically low.
I have a feeling there will be a similar split with iOS users who are installing 3rd party app stores vs. iOS users who choose to stay locked in
Developers unfortunately don't have any practical choice. As long as rich people keep buying Apple phones (I am specifically targeting phones here, because I think those are the ones that matter for this discussion, not Macbooks), this shit will continue.
Buying an Apple phone is as strong a signal as you can get that someone has a) a lot of discretionary income and b) a propensity towards paying for luxuries that no app developer who intends to make money can afford to ignore them in this "you'll own nothing and be happy" hellscape we have created.
Rich people? Everyone wants iPhones, they are by far the best smartphones.
I’m not defending Apple’s anticompetitive nonsense but this comment seems to ignore the elephant in the room about why they have the opportunity to be anticompetitive: they make the best smartphone user experience by far and consumers really really want that. They don’t understand that the censorship and racketeering comes fully integrated and inseparable (until today) with the rest of that UX.
Most users are happy to outsource the sysadminning of their phones to Apple, and the job Apple does is good enough for them. This is why iOS malware in the wild isn’t a widespread thing like it is on Android.
Anyone is free to "want" anything. But they need to be rich to actually afford it.
Also, I think it's a HN bubble thing to think that the vast majority of iPhone users know or care about Apple's fine-tuned App Store-related extortion or their privacy promises.
In fact until recently Apple had made it literally a bannable offence on the App Store to EVEN INFORM PEOPLE that Apple was taking a cut of their money.
FB collected money through their apps for charity fundraisers and Apple not only wanted 30% of that, but they refused to let FB EVEN INFORM their customers that this was happening.
I am sorry for using all caps but if you seriously do not see how insane this is becoming, we are operating on very different axioms.
Apple makes good hardware and decent software and has managed to maintain a patina of luxury and class and 'high society' for all these years, yes. Completely agreed.
Side note: I don't want an iPhone and have in 20 years of adult life never paid for an Apple product.
> Rich people? Everyone wants iPhones, they are by far the best smartphones.
Why do people think this? I've been using a Samsung Note with the Wacom stylus for over a decade. Every now and then I try an iPhone and the experience is good, but not great. The UI noticeably lags on any iPhone over a year old. The keyboard is annoying and lacks features I use, and third party keyboards don't integrate properly. No consistent back button behaviour, it's up to apps to implement and each does it differently. There is no way to sync the calendar or contacts with Webdav, not even with third party apps. So far as I know, there is no ADB equivalent.
Other than the phenomenal camera, which I think the newer Samsung S-series phones with the stylus match, I fail to see the appeal of the iPhone. Well, it is an appealing device, but not the "best" device for many workflows.
I quite like Apple hardware -- and indeed I'm typing this on a (second-hand) Macbook. I'd prefer not to have to use their software though, thank you very much. The good news is that Firefox works on pretty much everything that's not an iPhone or iPad.
Widespread malware isn't a thing on Android.
But you lost me already at "iPhones are by far the best Smartphones"
They are so crippled, I couldn't imagine using one
Many people, sure. But not everyone. I tried iPhone for some years but went back to Android. There were just too many random arbitrary restrictions for me.
> Additionally, the installation sheets, page labels, and disclosure sheets make it sound to me like they're going to do their best to scare users away from alternatives.
No, apple is not going to continue gatekeeping. However, it seems they will need a proper bitchslap to correctly understand their role here. This post (by apple) is actually ridiculous.
I don’t think that’s going to be as easy as you think. The DMA is a rule change for everyone, not a punishment aimed at Apple. If what Apple is proposing is legally compliant with it, then they are going to need to change the rules again for everyone, not just Apple.
It's (to me) clearly non-compliant with its intention. It's now for courts to decide whether that is the case, or for politicians to fix the law to patch this backdoor if there was one. But it will be fixed.
Intention doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the intention is expressed through the law. Not every intention can be, at least not in a state that actually respects the rule of law.
Intention is the only thing that matters. Laws in the EU do not work like in the US where you can get by on a technicality because the wrong grammar was used in the text.
If you purposefully interpret the law in the stupidest way possible that will benefit you, don't be surprised if the court disagrees with you.
How exactly are companies supposed to intuit what the law actually means? Surely the written law has some sort of bearing on how companies can comply with the law. So many people have the attitude, “C’mon, we all know what the law actually means…” That is not a good foundation for running a business or for administering law.
How in the world can a business read the mind of a bureaucratic organization to divine what the “intention” of a law is? Apple thinks they are complying with the law. Either they missed something basic or the law needs to be amended/changed if they want Apple to do something differently.
EU laws do come with a lot of written intent besides the actual articles.
If you read any EU directive (like the DMA) it'll start with a bunch of recitals that explain the intent and background of the law. Sometimes these are longer than the actual articles.
As far as I, as a layman understand, the legal practice is that these recitals can not contradict the main text but that they are intensively used by courts and to politicians to resolve open questions where the formal law is appropriately unspecific.
Apart from what the other poster said, Apple also had meetings with EU regulators. Who are not judges so cannot definitely say whether something is legal, but they are the other side in any case that goes to court.
As well, I don't think we can say Apple thinks they're complying with the law. That would be protected under attorney client privilege. They only weigh up the risks of penalties.
Perhaps the people who thought this would somehow make iOS like the Mac are interpreting the law in the stupidest way possible because they don’t understand commercial law.
The EU isn’t a dictatorship.
Courts there still follow precedent and legal principles, which means that the law has to be interpreted through the lens of established case law governing commerce, and how the court decides this will affect everyone else going forwards.
It's the standard strategy of making things so complex that no one bothers with it.
> Users will be able to download an alternative marketplace app from the marketplace developer’s website.
That is, an alternate app store will only be downloaded via the website and not app store. All this when an app developer will have to choose via App Store connect where they want to host the app.
> So Apple is going to continue gatekeeping all apps with an Apple-run review process and they will keep charging developers fees[1]
To a much lesser degree, but yes. The DMA explicitly allows for this.
> In fact, it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install after the installed base passes 1M (updates count as "installs").
This is misreading. Alternative stores would only owe a CTF for their own store being installed (no threshold). The free apps within the store are subject to the threshold and are to be paid by the developers of said apps.
> They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-run.
Yes. Pretty much.
Apple will require a letter of credit of $1M for any potential alternative store, this is in part for liability reasons and in part to better ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of safety etc.
I think it’s pretty reasonable, but yes, it is a hurdle for community run or grassroots alternative stores.
> Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide.
Your premise is off. They claimed, the agreement structures it as, and the courts accepted, that the commission was primarily to pay for Apple’s IP, with services being secondary.
Whether something reasonable or not differs from reasonable mind to reasonable mind. So I can’t make any judgement calls on that.
But the way they’ve restructured the fees for the EU definitely suggests a consistent logic on the part of Apple.
They still offer the 15% commission for small developers and renewals after the first year and 30% for big developers.
Alternatively they offer a fee structure that is split with an a la carte character.
Namely:
- 10% or 17% commission for small or big developers respectively for the use of App Store services
- 3% payment processing fee if you use Apple’s IAP payment processing
- €0.50/install for each unique install in a year as Core Technology Fee (i.e., for use of IP) after 1M installs in a given year
With the last few, the IP fee, not being optional. Which makes sense because all apps use Apple’s frameworks and other IP whether you use their payment processing or App Store services or not.
So I don’t see a lie on the count of subjectivity and on the count of consistent logic.
> The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or browser engines.
A while back there was a daemon found that fulfills this job. I believe it was called countryd and it uses a combination of cellular network, account data, WiFi country code and the like.
> On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple.
The annual fee is negligible and spent as soon as you start submitting a a build or two per month.
The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle because there’s always cost in tooling involved. Whether you buy a hammer, a windows laptop or a Mac. At that point why stop there, why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet connection?
> ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of safety etc. I think it’s pretty reasonable
I upvoted you because this contained some of the most useful information in the thread for folks who aren't reading the article (which they should). That said, it's beyond sad to me that we've reached a point where people are considering it very reasonable that only large corporate entities with the power and intent to censor are able to distribute software. The web had it right, and I'm really grateful it was around before mega-corporations and governments were keen to control the power of individuals using it.
> The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle because there’s always cost in tooling involved. Whether you buy a hammer, a windows laptop or a Mac. At that point why stop there, why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet connection?
Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they?
Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer. There’s nothing technically special about their hardware in terms of compiling a program, it’s again anti-competitive.
And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays.
> Well, they are not forcing you to buy their specific brand of overpriced electricity or internet connection are they?
Oh, ok, so because Apple forces me to buy internet and electricity but not any specific internet or electricity, Apple gets a pass?
I'm glad that’s cleared up.
Whether something is overpriced is a subjective opinion that we seem to differ on. Still, somehow, I suspect you’ll struggle to provide me an example that can match, say, the latest MBP with an M3 chip in performance and power draw at a lower price.
> Forcing you to buy their hardware to develop is obviously an implicit unavoidable extra fee on the developer.
You call it forcing. I call it not going out of their way to spend resources on developing tooling for a platform other than their own.
And yet, despite them not going out of their way to spend resources, many alternatives have developed over the years to create an app for iOS on Windows.
Seems like it’s not that big of an issue.
I’m not particularly fazed by the notion that I need an Apple device to create an app for Apple devices.
But what do I know? Perhaps I got brainwashed after they forced me to buy an iPhone to debug my iPhone apps.
> it’s again anti-competitive
Is it anti-competitive for a company not to go out of its way to create tooling that runs a competing platform?
> And no, this is not common practice, the vast majority of software is developed with zero cost of tooling. Besides a minimal computer that can run an editor and a compiler, of course, purchased from a very diverse and open market, for arbitrarily cheap prices nowadays
You’re contradicting yourself. What is it?
Is there zero cost of tooling, and can I pick up a free laptop at my nearest handout spot, or are we to pretend it’s “zero cost” just because there are options on how much I spend?
If it’s the latter, where is the line in the sand? Is it anti-competitive that I must purchase a laptop with specific minimal specs to have a smooth compiling experience? Does the line start when I want to develop games, and I have to pull my wallet to buy a decent GPU?
I’m sorry; I have difficulty taking any of this seriously.
Yes, I will have to make some financial investments if I want to have the tools to create something that is pretty much a given for pretty much anything.
And yes, sometimes I’ll need a specific tool for a particular job.
Are we to admonish every such instance or only when you feel something is overpriced?
> This is misreading [...] The free apps within the store are subject to the threshold
This is a distinction without a difference. Paying Apple millions per year to merely allow users to download apps that make no revenue from third parties is ridiculous no matter who's paying. And not that it matters, but when I wrote the part you quoted the "they" was actually intended to refer to the app developer; rereading it I agree that my phrasing did not convey that.
> the IP fee, not being optional. Which makes sense because all apps use Apple’s frameworks and other IP
Only under coercion. The fee is not reasonable, and I guarantee that if it developers were allowed to avoid the Core Technology fee by not using Apple's frameworks and IP then we would very quickly see alternative frameworks spring up and soon a majority of apps in third party stores would choose them. In fact a lot of apps are already mostly web based, and I'm sure would prefer to use a Chromium based engine if they could, so already today the "benefit" they get from Apple's IP is minimal if not net negative, considering Apple's underinvestment in web tech. Apps built on Unity or other game engines also fall into this category, so, a large majority of the App Store's biggest moneymaking category.
> The hardware cost is an argument that always makes me chuckle [...] why not throw in the cost of electricity and an internet connection?
Electricity? Seriously? Now you're making me chuckle. If you can't tell the difference between a product like the Mac that only one company in the world is allowed to make and a commodity like electricity, I think you should consider that you may be subject to the reality distortion field.
> This is a distinction without a difference. Paying Apple millions per year to merely allow users to download apps that make no revenue from third parties is ridiculous no matter who's paying.
You’re preaching to the choir here.
I’m pleased with my 15% rate tied to revenue. If I do well, they do well, and vice versa, and there’s little to no upfront risk for me.
However, many thought a commission based on revenue was unfair, and some insisted that decoupling the fees and a separate fee for IP would be better.
Well, here it is in very old skool style: an upfront, no-nonsense fee for using IP.
That said, I can’t help but wonder. Which app developer would end up paying millions per year in CTF for an entirely free app?
They’d have to be a developer that:
- chose to forego the App Store and commission-based fees
- distribute their app via a third-party App Store
- not be a non-profit, government entity, or educational entity
- have to have more than 3 million unique installs on iOS devices in the EU in a given year to reach a $/€1M fee
And for my moral compass to start caring, extract 0 value from this hypothetical app
I can’t think of a single app that comes close to this hypothetical.
Besides, there’s a big difference here. The situation, as I interpreted it, would mean that third-party stores are dead on arrival. In contrast, this situation only concerns extremely successful unicorn apps that apparently have very altruistic developers behind them.
> Only under coercion.
In the same way, I breathe in and out every second under coercion. Although if I stop breathing, I die, I can’t just hop on to the nearest Walmart and grab myself a pair of Android lungs, so perhaps not the best analogy.
> The fee is not reasonable
That’s a personal value judgment. I think it’s incredibly reasonable.
Both when you compare it to other upfront fee structures for the use of IP, where anything sub-thousand is unheard of, and if you compare it to more conventional revenue-based fees such as the 5% Epic charges for Unreal after your first million. The latter has the potential to balloon infinitely, whereas, with a per-install fee, it’s by definition capped.
In many ways, it’s like the runtime fee Unity tried to impose but done right. There is a much higher install threshold, not based on lifetime but a rolling install threshold, not tied to revenue, and, of course, the option to avoid the fee altogether.
> and I guarantee that if it developers were allowed to avoid the Core Technology fee by not using Apple's frameworks
It’s not a matter of being allowed or not; it’s by its nature impossible to avoid the use of Apple’s IP entirely.
It’s like me guaranteeing that if I woke up with a trillion dollars in my bank account tomorrow while also finding myself to be the head of state of every country on the planet, I would ensure that everyone on earth would be happy.
Other than that, I doubt your utopia would come to fruition even if it were possible. There are already a whole bunch of non-Apple frameworks with which you can build entire apps, and while I wouldn’t go as far as to say that they’re entirely unpopular, it’s a far cry from a majority of apps using them.
> In fact a lot of apps are already mostly web based
You bring up a good point. Web-based apps can entirely avoid any fees, but many users, as well as business customers, primarily care about having a native app.
> and I'm sure would prefer to use a Chromium based engine if they could
I thought the whole vibe was to be against monopolies.
Whatever the case, Chromium engines will also be available with these changes, so hooray, I guess.
> so already today the "benefit" they get from Apple's IP is minimal
The quantity of benefit is irrelevant. Whether it’s used or not is all that matters when it comes to paying for IP.
The other day, I rented a car, and it turned out I didn’t actually need it that much. Alas, I didn’t get a refund.
> considering Apple's underinvestment in web tech
Rather trite argument. Since Apple hired Jen Simmons in 2020, they’ve significantly improved Safari and web support.
Interop benchmark has placed Safari at the top in the last few years, and Safari supports close to everything Firefox supports.
> Apps built on Unity or other game engines also fall into this category, so, a large majority of the App Store's biggest moneymaking category.
Believe it or not, they, too, need to use Apple’s IP to be able to do what they do.
> Electricity? Seriously? Now you're making me chuckle. If you can't tell the difference between a product like the Mac that only one company in the world is allowed to make and a commodity like electricity, I think you should consider that you may be subject to the reality distortion field.
As if electricity and internet service are known for being able to be purchased from a wide selection of companies.
I’d restrict the comment to the US, but my experience outside the US wasn’t exactly a buffet of options either.
Regardless, the point, of course, is that it’s nonsense to blame the fact that you need tools and basic necessities to do something on the company that makes the tools or necessities.
I also need an iPhone to debug my apps properly. Should I write Tim Cook an angry email about that?
Article 6 sub 4 second and third paragraph of the DMA[0] states the following:
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
This isn't so clear-cut and open to interpretation. To me it sounds like this would be referring to technical limitations like the ones already put in place by the OS - ie prohibiting a third-party "Settings" app with "root" capabilities or a "file manager" app able to access data across all other apps would be fine.
Apple themselves explicitly approving each installable app does not seem strictly necessary and proportionate.
The DMA doesn’t abolish gatekeeping, otherwise it would’ve simply stated “Entities designated as gatekeepers are to cease business”.
The DMA aims to regulate them to create a more level playing field.
Making sure that third party stores have enough money available to be able to moderate, review, handle fraud, and deal with liability issues seems within the line of what Articld 6 sub 4 of the DMA[0] allows:
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
Was it? So Apple’s lawyers are just idiots? There is a much greater chance that the law was not about gatekeeping or sideloading in general. If there is a clause that simply says that a platform owner can’t restrict apps then they should have put that in there. Apple apparently didn’t find that. Can you? I haven’t sat down and read it myself so I would appreciate being shown where the law addresses gatekeeping.
Edit: OK, the term “gatekeeping” is all over the wiki concerning the DMA. But as is often the case, a term can have different meanings in different legal contexts. In Apple’s case it looks like the DMA was more about Apple opening up the browser, NFC payments, and favoring their own apps in the App Store. I don’t see anything in the Wiki about sideloading as part of being a “gatekeeper.”
Basically, the first point of the summary of what the DMA is for basically invalidates anything Apple is doing:
> Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer:
> treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform
I find it hard to see what is not 'more favorable' about staying within the walled garden. All their rules are made to terrify people that would step outside it.
I am getting flashbacks to when Google was found to be abusing their monopoly and people went crazy because “Apple is so much worse.” In my brief look at the DMA it looks like Apple was targeted for specific things but sideloading as most people think of it wasn’t one of those things. It’s very possible that Apple has addressed all of the things that were brought to bear on them. It certainly doesn’t seem like the DMA directly addressed sideloading on iOS.
I’ll preface this with saying that this is not a dig at you personally.
That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”.
If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something that tangentially applicable to their situation at hand.
But even in those cases people just seemingly stopped reading once they thought they read something that supported what they wanted.
On that note, your quoted part has a couple of issues. Most important for this debate is that it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand.
It talked about a gatekeeper favoring itself more in rankings.
So if you search for “Music” in the App Store and Apple shows the Apple Music app before showing Spotify, Deezer, and the like, then this non-legally binding layperson’s explanation of the DMA would apply.
Although even in the case of the example Apple might get away with pointing out that a query for the term “music” is expected to favor results with “music” in their name, but that’s neither here nor there.
I never said that Apple's Lawyers are idiots.
They are probably testing the boundaries.
If they get fined, they will comply, if they get away with this, they will make more money every year
>it will be impossible for alternative stores to offer free apps because they will owe Apple €0.50 per install
Apple spends billions of dollars to develop iOS and allows a user to exclusively install free apps if they want. This behavior is subsidized by other users doing IAP and buying paid apps. Alternate app stores can also subsidize free apps from the money they make from IAP and from paid apps.
They're also going to gatekeep alternative stores with a vetting process that will probably exclude anything community-run.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is they appear to be cutting the App Store commission to 10%, giving the lie to their claims that their fees are reasonable due to the service they provide. Clearly they feel that their service doesn't justify the fees in a competitive market (even though any competition will be minimal with the anticompetitive measures they're still clinging to in these changes).
The most interesting thing that's not mentioned here is exactly how the inevitable geofencing will work to enforce that the rest of the world doesn't get to use alternative stores or browser engines.
[1] On top of the annual Apple developer program fee that they conveniently forget to mention, plus the requirement to do builds and signing on physical Mac hardware purchased from Apple.