annnnd even then, apple still gets to review and reject your app before you can list on an alternate app store.
> Notarization for iOS apps — a baseline review that applies to all apps, regardless of their distribution channel, focused on platform integrity and protecting users. Notarization involves a combination of automated checks and human review.
So.. Epic makes an IOS store, puts Fortnite on that store, and Apple rejects it for reasons related to previous rules on the IOS store (or some grudge). I guess we're due for another round of Epic v. Apple before the decade ends.
Is that going to change? It looks like Apple is charging 0.50EUR per first-annual install of every alternative app store (no free installs for the first million). So it's going to cost money to run an alternative app store.
I don't think there's any category excluded by current App Store restrictions, that would actually be likely to end up having more than 1MM EU installs per year (and therefore paying Apple a dime under this new model), is there?
...well, except porn and sex-work apps, I guess. Will nobody think of the poor, penniless OnlyFans CEO? /s
I'd side with OnlyFans over Apple to be honest. OF almost destroyed itself but ultimately empowers creators to post what they want, for however much they want (Even if it ultimately is way above my paygrade. monthly subscriptions plus absurd PPV prices).
Apple at this point is just surpressing whatever it deems bad, even if that app as mandated by the EU wants to be hosted outside of teh App store.
Oh, I completely agree. My point was that OF (and the entire sex work / porn industry) is intensely profitable — at least for the business owners, not necessarily the talent — and so half a Euro per install won't be any skin off their backs.
Actually, they'll likely be excited to pay it, since finally having access to the iOS market will unlock tons more revenue. (And lead-gen fees are no stranger to their business model.)
and the one potential category of those apps, various flavors of open source software, can be distributed by a non-profit organization and be exempt from the fees.
Yeah, it wouldn't be something that could be entered into without some consideration, but there are already a many, many software projects that are successfully distributed by non-profit organizations, so it certainly is feasible.
No, that's wrong. Multiple news sites are getting that wrong but Apple announcement is very clear that the fee applies to even App Store:
> Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
> Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. Developers must adopt the new business terms for EU apps to use the new capabilities for alternative distribution or alternative payment processing.
So you either choose US/Global Business Model (what we know today), or EU Business Model (what was announced today, with flexibility but high fees). You can distribute on the App Store either way.
It's not, at least not if developers opt into the new terms, which is a trapdoor decision. It's also unclear how long the old terms will remain available, and whether new companies can still sign up for them.
Not sure why you're downvoted. Developers are given a choice on the new system or the current. Anyone distributing a free app will stick with the current.
There exist free apps that Apple doesn't approve of in it's store.
And there are also free apps that might want to be distributed through Apple's store alongside an alternative store, which would require them to accept the new terms, as far as I can tell.
