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.
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.
the rest of the world also has no problem with the EU confirming it's status :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
What does this mean? Last time I checked, the App Store was full of trash, similarly to Play Store.
That's not related to store quality, but of the users purchasing power
One could entertain the idea that some real and viable competition to AppStore could really improve things for both developers and users. /s
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
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.
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.
It does sound very European though.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Give me a break.
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.
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?
Very surprising. A reference or pointer to the relevant section would be great.
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.
0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
This is nonsense of the highest order. How is that ‘allowing’ alternative app stores. That’s just gatekeeping by a different measure.
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.
0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
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.
