Luckily, the EU included substantial anti-circumvention provisions in the DMA. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the excerpts from the regulations below, it seems likely the EU would have grounds to open legal proceedings against Apple's new rules.
4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of
Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other
nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.
7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner
described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt
an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement."
Apple is going full frontal attack and saying the DMA creates security risks in the headline, and then repeating that messaging throughout the article. Hard to believe the ECJ is going to stand by and watch Apple convince millions that the EU is working to harm their constituents security but that Apple is here to save them.
Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud.
Most consumers understand those concepts and fear those things. Most understand nothing about the economic impact of monopolies and anti-competitive business behavior and the harms they cause consumers in the form of higher prices, lack of innovation, reduced choice, and poorer quality products and services.
So Apple plays off those fears by using language consumers understand, making them actually want the very monopoly that is being forced on them and actually harming them while making billions for Apple.
It's unethical behavior, no more defensible than Sam Bankman-Fried's effective altruism, a.k.a. "mostly a front." This is all right out of Apple's standard playbook.
> Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud.
Which is ironic, considering that the App Store is likely one of the largest malware distribution vectors on the planet.
Looking at one virus alone, the App Store distributed half of a billion copies of it to iPhones and iPads[1]. Similarly, there are multimillion dollar scams on the App Store, as well[2].
That one virus on the App Store was one of, if not the biggest known instance of a virus on the App Store, and your article gives a number four times smaller than half a billion. From your [1]:
> But now, thanks to emails published as part of Apple's trial against Epic Games, we finally know how many iPhone users were impacted: 128 million in total, of which 18 million were in the US.
> "In total, 128M customers have downloaded the 2500+ apps that were affected LTD. Those customers drove 203M downloads of the 2500+ affected apps LTD," Dale Bagwell, who was Apple's manager of iTunes customer experience at the time, wrote in one of the emails.
> Apple also disclosed the apps that included the malicious code, some incredibly popular such as WeChat and the Chinese version of Angry Birds 2.
Still a huge deal, particularly in China, but considering all the virus really did was collect some device info (less information than most ad networks) (and maybe it was able to open URLs and popups on command)[1] and it was the biggest virus on the App Store ever (that I can find), maybe not as awful as you suggest.
The scams on the App Store, yeah that's pretty bad. Though, can you point me at a marketplace as big as the App Store without loads of scams?
Not only that, it proves the opposite of the claim.
Suppose there were multiple app marketplaces for iOS. Then some of them could be extremely selective by finding a niche, and thereby be more trustworthy than any unified store that has to carry a million general purpose apps with only cursory evaluation from various publishers of little or unknown reputation.
> all the virus really did was collect some device info (less information than most ad networks)
Nah, that would mean that what really protects iOS users from malwares is just a good sandboxing mechanism and not the "human" control of the App Store. That would also mean that bypassing the App Store shouldn’t be a real security issue.
It’s pretty clear that it’s both. Claiming otherwise is a bit disingenuous. An app store with no human or automatic validation and not $100 would have a magnitude or two more malware.
Can you back that up with an example, perhaps the Android Play Store? Is there significantly more malware on recent (last ~5 years) versions of Android than similarly recent versions of iOS?
The question is whether there’s more malware on stores like f-droid, and the answer is yes, there is of course significantly more malware.
This even pollutes the official Play Store to some extent because of course google can’t put the foot down too hard when Facebook et al can simply “start their own app stores” to bypass review if they really want to. Malware rates are much higher on android in general.
NPM is also used by Windows an MacOS machines, and who knows which else. *BSD? Anything that runs JavaScript?
Probably OP was thinking about the deb and rpm repositories of the main distributions but yes, NPM and the likes are other examples of large repositories.
It's the open part of it that's comparable to the app store in size. The closed part is in addition.
I agree there are linux-only repos that are ~1% of that size and contain little or no malware or abuse. That's true whether you measure size in updates per day or total count of packages, so 1% seems reachable without considerable malware problems.
No, npm is not a Linux distribution. It's a programming language package manager and package repository.
The distinguishing feature of Linux distributions is the existence of maintainers. Human beings who put in effort into maintaining the quality and integrity of the packages and keeping them up to date. We Linux users generally trust those people, and they stand between us and all the software developers out there. To get to us, you gotta go through them. And they generally aren't in the habit of allowing obvious malware into the software repositories. That's why we trust them in the first place.
Contrast that to repositories like npm, pypi, rubygems, cargo which are all designed so that any random person can make an account and push up any package they want. There's no checking. Accounts might be compromised by or outright bought by malicious actors. Just like popular browser extensions which get bought and converted into malware.
I mentioned it because it contains a lot of GPL-licensed packages, and a lot of it's used on linux, and it's at least near the scale of the app store. It falls a little short along all three axes, but it seems to be the closest.
I don't think either Debian, Fedora or Arch are anywhere close to a million packages or a thousand updates per day. Well below 10%. They're GNUish and 100% linux, but really bad on the size axis.
The app store has at least two classes of problems that those three don't have, and have to handle the problems at much higher scale. "Those guys manage to handle a simpler problem at much smaller scale, so it's possible for the app store too" is hardly an argument.
Yes it is. Most likely also in the other part, although link I included doesn't mention any of that. The key appears to be: A large repo with lots of uploaders, some of which guard their passwords poorly.
As long as a FLOSS repo is small and has few uploaders, it'll be safe. Hardly a model for a big and busy repo like the app store, of couse.
> Though, can you point me at a marketplace as big as the App Store without loads of scams?
Maybe the issue is being so big then. Which is exactly why the EU did this in the first place. So Apple has yet another lever to comply: reduce their size.
What kind of take is this? The main channel for apps is extremely similar to iOS's App store. I highly doubt if there is a difference, it's due to non-Google App stores or sideloading.
> I highly doubt if there is a difference, it's due to non-Google App stores or sideloading.
Tech journalists have literally warned Android users that they need to be wary of apps from inside Google's walled garden.
> With malicious apps infiltrating Play on a regular, often weekly, basis, there’s currently little indication the malicious Android app scourge will be abated. That means it’s up to individual end users to steer clear of apps like Joker. The best advice is to be extremely conservative in the apps that get installed in the first place. A good guiding principle is to choose apps that serve a true purpose and, when possible, choose developers who are known entities. Installed apps that haven’t been used in the past month should be removed unless there’s a good reason to keep them around.
I disable autoupdate for apps on android, since all it does is bring in more ads normally. I manually update webview every once in a while and that's it.
You are free to choose an android phone or an Apple one; that part of the market is absolutely free. Apple is the top seller of smartphones, I believe this qualifies as "competing successfully".
That part of the market not being separate from the other part of the market is the issue. There could be a dozen different reasons that someone might want an iPhone over some competitor, and if they buy one for that reason, they're stuck with Apple's store even if they would have chosen something else given the option.
Not only that, the markets are tied together in both directions.
Suppose that you do want to go into competition with Apple and Google and make your own competing phone platform. The biggest problem you're going to have is that people expect you to have a lot of apps available for your phone before they'll buy one, but you have to have a lot of customers before anyone will make apps for your platform.
The traditional way to solve this is by creating a cross-platform framework and then giving developers an incentive to use it, generally by making it easy to distribute apps to existing platforms. For example, Valve wants game developers to develop for SteamOS, so they provide cross-platform frameworks and a distribution system that also works on popular incumbent platforms like Windows. Then developers make games that run on Windows and incidentally also on Linux/SteamOS, and now there are more games available for SteamOS than ever before and it's the most promising competitor to Windows for PC gaming in a long time.
Conversely, Microsoft is prevented from making an app store for iOS, so they can't do that and their ambition to create a viable competitor to Apple and Android faltered. Likewise Ubuntu Touch and Firefox OS and every other attempt to create a viable alternate phone platform. And then you say "just buy a different phone platform" -- as if that wasn't the problem.
At least in the US, imessage gives apple an effective monopoly. Their are strong social repercussions for not having imessage. If you want to be included you pretty much must have an iPhone.
Apple is well aware of this and plays into it hard.
> At least in the US, imessage gives apple an effective monopoly. Their are strong social repercussions for not having imessage. If you want to be included you pretty much must have an iPhone.
That's because people are idiots. There's nothing that iMessage does that whatsapp, telegram, kakao, line can't do. In fact, US/Canada are the only ones that actually use SMS or iMessage, as far as I know, and the rest of the world use other messaging apps. I have been living in Canada for 5 years already, and in no instance I had any issue whatsoever. I now use iPhone, but nobody talks to me via iMessage, it's all either Messenger or Whatsapp, or Instagram
If Apple is able to hold such a stronghold over Americans because of something so easily bypassed, then you deserve to be controlled, really.
Oh stop it, Apple isn’t responsible for people’s choice of friends, they do need to provide a UI affordance that someone may not be getting messages displayed corrected
> Oh stop it, Apple isn’t responsible for people’s choice of friends, they do need to provide a UI affordance that someone may not be getting messages displayed corrected
Apple has been repeatedly requested to change the colour to a less ugly shade, or to give users the choice to disable the feature or to give Android apps an API of some sort so they can comply with whatever Apple's requirements and get the blue text boxes.
Apple hasn't taken action because they like the current state of affairs, they want the social ostracism of non-Apple users.
This week I removed adware from Android, which is installed according to the following scheme: a person sees a fake advertising notification about an infection, then even trying to close it opens Google Play or another store with some kind of antivirus with a generic name like xcleaner, to make it harder to find it among others, and installs it. Then this application starts working in the background and every 2-3 minutes creates full-screen advertising banners with vibration, also about infections with links to other garbage. It does not exist in the list of applications and in the activity list as soon as the banner is closed. While it is there, instead of its name it shows a webview, and you need to guess to go from the list of processes to the application in order to see its real name and delete it.
A year ago, I also saw a fake advertisement for a squid game. These fake advertisements have already become a meme, but they also offer to download from Google Play a slightly similar game, where after quickly clicking on the screen, the smartphone will suddenly prompt you to buy an expensive subscription and then you will not be able to cancel it, because Google does not provide for them refund. This idea comes from SMS scams since j2me platform, and judging by the comments on this game, people are still losing money, especially if they leave their phones to children.
I don't use ios and won't say whether manual moderation there helps prevent the same crap, but let's not ignore that if you're not tech-savvy, this Android security alternative is pretty easy to get around.
literally the same "scam ad - scam app" pipeline exists on ios. ads exist, bad scammy ads exist, garbage apps exist, stuff slips through app moderation filters, or just stays around and gets by because it's juuust enough for it to not be outright malware. bad ads and apps are unfortunately not a platform specific problem, nor are they really "solved" by either of platforms.
funnily enough, some bits of it might be worse because ios and app store are promoted as 'being secure' period, almost unequivocally - so it ends up being a thing like 'well, ios is secure and this app is on the store, so it's all good, right?", which doesn't always happen to be the case.
I still think there ought to be some solution that includes both "apps can't force/trick you into changing defaults" and "owner of device can still choose to change defaults".
are you asking what is safer about, eg, selinux vs regular linux? I think that is pretty self-evident that a constrained user experience results in a reduced attack surface.
these questions are silly if you pivot them to be about other things rather than the fruit company, just like the arguments that "[company] needs to run open-infrastructure so other companies can build commercial products on [company] servers".
It's rather obvious they're being asked in bad faith with the intention of dragging down the discussion. You know perfectly well what SELinux and application sandboxing are for, and that they're net benefits.
Maybe but the vast majority of people have zero issues with malware and don't really care about the perceived advantage of privacy (just Apple marketing because they can't sell ads, if they could they wouldn't give a shit).
I take care of Android devices used by elderly people, and they have just zero issues. Not anymore than they would have with iOS.
All this is nonsense talk trying to help the indefensible position of Apple. Most people also use Windows computers with no monopolistic app store and even though sometimes they are problems they almost always come from user errors. Most of the time it's poor choices, generally from greedy behavior (trying to get stuff for free without knowing much).
If a user doesn't know what it's doing, it can ask someone for help or stick with Apple's App Store if that suits him. Allowing other possibilities for more competent people doesn't change this fact one bit.
Late reply, but that is definitely "user error"; and the iPhone will exhibit the same problem if you allow any random app notifications access. There are plenty of bad actors, even on iOS. For example, even Uber Eats will target you with ads if you dare allow all permissions for notifications just to get orders tracking...
In fact, their notification system makes it complicated to just allow specific behavior and not something else. It's not better than the notification settings in typical web apps.
As a day one user of iOS, I find it funny that you complain about notification out of all things, because if there is one place where iOS is just as fucked as every other platform it's notifications...
Nowadays I have resorted to basically denying notification for everything but the few stuff where they are actually relevant...
Also, you should correctly set things up for your mother and refuse notification prompt for every website and just whitelist the few that might be usefull..
Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. Android devices were responsible for 26.64% of all infections, Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones.
Android malware infections are an order of magnitude higher compared to iPhones.
(I tried to look for data from more recent years but iPhones don't show up in the reports after 2020.)
Citing xcodeghost as a big smoking gun of Apple malfeasants is absurd. Apple handled that whole situation really well considering it came from a bunch of downloader websites where the attacker had modified clang and Xcode.
>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud.
When someone claims he's the only one who can protect the public I immediately see some question marks.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Technically it's true that if you were to equate influence to the ability to protect, that when you lose that influence you also lose the ability to protect.
So far, it's all been speculation, even drawing parallels with Android or Windows doesn't help because it's not similar enough. I would expect a broader ecosystem or additional facets to an existing ecosystem to also cause an expansion of questionable quality and practises, but that applies to everything, not just mobile phones.
FWIW, my observation of Google's app store policies over the last 8 years or so is that they simply trail behind Apple's policies by a couple of years. Google is constantly expanding their store policies in order to better vet who is distributing apps, restricting the behavior of apps, etc. and they almost always mirror what Apple has already put in place.
I would agree with you that Apple isn't the only entity that can provide that type of vetting process but it also seems clear to me that a vetting process is actually a useful and desirable service.
You do know that except for arguably Hungary (and even that's slowly being worked on... it's just really hard), all EU members are democracies and the EU itself is a democratic institution?
I did get kind of annoyed at the very specific wording they used throughout the article.
Especially the constant mentioning of the "EU" when this applies to the EEA, leaving out two entire countries. I hope they actually realize this internally.
>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud.
It's the same sales pitch that Canonical is using to justify its centralized snap store.
>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud.
Tim Cook is parroting Steve Jobs when he says that Apple deeply cares about users' privacy and security. Jobs was smart enough to realize that emphasising security and privacy protections would increase sales because Apple is a company which sells computer products instead of advertising solutions and services like Google and others(although Apple is increasingly thinking about how to monetize their Big Data).
Jobs knew his audience: people who buy computers as appliances for specific tasks, and don't want to (or can't) understand anything about how computers actually work. To these folks, computing is basically magic; so it's easy to put a bit of fear into them to make them more faithful to the shaman.
This seems awfully dismissive of people who choose to use a system. Just because you don’t agree with people’s choices doesn’t mean we don’t understand “how computers actually work”.
While he was certainly targeting that kind of audience it is extremely shortsighted to think that it was Job's primary target. In fact, if you have enough knowledge about everything he has said and done, it's easy to argue that he was in fact targeting very competent peoples, that were quite knowledgeable about technology and that wanted shit to just work precisely for those reason.
Because when you know how things work and what they are capable of, the last thing you want to do is fight with them so that they work. At least, someone who doesn't know better cares much less because he is clueless about the existence of a better way.
Jobs was in the business of selling bicycles for the mind, not dumb consumption machines. The latter development of basic consumer focused products is just after the success of the iPhone and happened basically precisely when he left (while officially he was still managing apple, it's pretty clear that after the launch of the first iPad, jobs didn't have a lot of impact at Apple his health condition not allowing).
It also made sense because before Apple was something to exhibit to display wealth nobody that wasn't competent enough with technology would have spent so much money on it.
Which is exactly why current Apple offering is absolutely terrible for its price.
Most of the crap told on Apple nowadays are complete memes from the second wave of Apple cultist (most of them arriving with the iPhone) that completely ignore the true history of Apple and how it got to launch such successful products.
> it's easy to argue that he was in fact targeting very competent peoples
Competent in other fields of endeavour, sure.
Jobs was in the business of selling computers that looked (and worked) good to people who would otherwise hate computers. Dealing with geeks was always (and still is) a necessary evil, so he'd have enough of an ecosystem to sell to "normies".
Jobs fundamentally hated the Macintosh and tried very hard to get away from it very early (Newton, anyone?). Once he got back on the saddle, his first Big Idea was to wrap them into colourful shells, and fuck the tech inside (jesus, was the first iMac dog-slow!). His second idea was to co-opt FOSS and Java developers, again to have enough geeks building stuff for his platform; they would be unceremoniously dropped once the iPod got traction and he could finally get to run the "better Sony" he always wanted to have.
The rest is just stories he told to power his reality-distortion field.
There’s a couple inaccuracies you’re making, but here’s the most blatant:
> Jobs fundamentally hated the Macintosh and tried very hard to get away from it very early (Newton, anyone?).
Jobs had nothing to do with the Newton, it was started about a year after he was forced out, Sculley coined the term Personal Digital Assistant, and it was one of the first things killed when Jobs got back to Apple.
> Jobs was in the business of selling computers that looked (and worked) good to people who would otherwise hate computers. Dealing with geeks was always (and still is) a necessary evil, so he'd have enough of an ecosystem to sell to "normies".
NeXT contradicts that.
Though, I like how you mention he always wanted to be a "better Sony." That's definitely on point.
Surely Apple recognizes “*nix-sphere web software developers who want a nice laptop” as one of their target professional markets in the OSX era, too. That’s sold a hell of a lot of MacBooks. It’s developers of software for their own platforms that Apple has long had a tense relationship with.
The original iMac hardware specs were also pretty reasonable for when it came out, no?
> Most of the crap told on Apple nowadays are complete memes from the second wave of Apple cultist (most of them arriving with the iPhone) that completely ignore the true history of Apple and how it got to launch such successful products.
Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod would like a word.
To extend this metaphor: one thing to note is that Jobs wasn't the guy doing the magic. That was Woz. Jobs was the priest who wrote the rules about what magic is and isn't OK.
At the time of Jobs, apple's stance about security was mostly marketing as well.
Remember all the times when a computer could be compromised via a bug in the jvm that was supposed to safely run the java applets?
Normally it would be fixed immediately on linux and windows, and take months on osx because apple had their own jvm (that had the same bugs because it was just a fork).
I’m not convinced that it’s a “trick.” Do you genuinely believe that iPhone customer satisfaction will not go down if sideloading and/or third party app stores are supported? For me, it’s impossible to imagine that this is the case.
I'd imagine that for the vast majority (>99%) of users, it would stay exactly the same. You can download installers (a la any desktop/laptop) or go through a repo/store of your choice on Android and very, very few outside of tinkerers or techie types bother. Out of all my friends and family, I've yet to find a single other person with F-Droid installed or who downloaded an APK direct from a developer's website or github.
Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well.
What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money.
But tbf, even though I can install APKs on Android I don't really do that as there's still the fear of bad actors; maybe the Android sandbox is safe & secure but I don't _know_ that, they haven't _told_ me explicitly about it. And if it's not safe for Android too, then why not?
> Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well.
> What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money.
Or maybe just because designing a good sandbox is really hard. Look at snap packages on linux. They're one of the most common way of sandboxing linux apps and come with significant limitations compared to unsandboxed software.
Yeah a lot of these questions are just obviously bad-faith and wouldn't be made in any case except for the fruit company. It's intentionally dragging down the discourse with dumb bullshit.
"selinux had an escape once therefore it's useless!" no, that's not how that works and you know it.
"gatekeepers should have an obligation to interoperate with third-party systems!" oh so google needs to run open SMTP relays to allow third-parties to build commercial operations on google's infrastructure and send mail to google's users? google needs to not block unwanted commercial solicitation from third-party operators because they "have to interoperate"?
etc etc
in this case - ctrl-f for "sandbox" and virtually every single one of the comments is some variant of the same obviously bait/flamewar comment.
the discourse is always really bad in these threads and frankly a ton of it is android users who can't help but roll in the shit and sling insults constantly ("apple sheeple who only care about blue bubbles", etc) and we've completely normalized them acting out (both as a society and here on HN) for some reason.
Lmao, salty much. I literally pointed out the same issue for Android as well; there is a sandbox, can I trust it and if not then why not?
The discourse is on why we accept that browsers can sandbox websites but we can't place the same amount of trust in sandboxing of apps and historically Android has been better at that than Apple because they actually allow you to do it in the first place, the caveat being that it's not really made clear if this is "safe" or not.
Apple is one step behind Android on this but they're _both_ many steps behind making it transparent to the user that "installing any app from anywhere is as safe as visiting any random website".
> Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well.
> What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money.
That’s not really the point. On the Web you have a single google.com, and on the AppStore you have a single "Google" app. If you allow multiple sources for apps you break this idea of a unique registry and allow anyone to create an app named "Google" or any other well-known brand. There’s no way of ensuring the "Google" app you’re looking at is the genuine one anymore.
I mean surely that's solvable in a similar way that it was for websites, ie SSL+certs registered to domain x. Can the OS (Android, iOS) not have a provision to show who any app is really from in the same way that I can see right now that: "Y Combinator Management, LLC. issued by Digicert"?
Unfortunately it's not really perfect solution for the web either as plenty of people still get scammed by fake urls + not bothering to check who the cert is for/from...
Apple’s App Store has more choice, quality, and innovation than Android does; yeah, there are other factors at play there—but it’s a bit brash to accuse people of understanding nothing when, in the case of mobile app stores, you’re arguing from imaginary evidence.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you force people to differentiate to compete, then there will be more innovation and diversity. That also means there’s less incentive to create “yet another journaling app” because you don’t know what is “too similar” for the reviewer. (Real example: “you can’t list this because it has a similar feature to X” rebuttal: “X has many features, but we are focusing on simplicity and this feature is our only feature we intend to support. For privacy, we won’t sync or do any of the other fancy things X does.” Their final response: “it’s still too similar” — all paraphrases). In order to compete in established verticals, your app has to be nearly feature complete and “different enough” as well as be completely polished. This is quite a gamble when starting out.
> search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to.
I don’t know how old the rules are for this. I just know it currently exists. Also, it’s possible that a number of them were submitted at the exact same time and there was a race condition allowing the market to be flooded.
Android is even more expensive (in time, and money) to get up and running, these days.
For example, they force you to go find your country's D-U-N's number provider, which usually costs time and money -- unlike the US, where looking up your own number is free. Then they verify it. Apple just looks it up for you, for free.
When you register as a person, Apple just requires basic supporting documentation and doesn't require a real device. Google requires that you have a specific brand of device in-hand to sell an app, and won't let you use smaller, less known brands (at least in the US, even if the brand is popular where you live). This means you need to drop nearly $1,000 USD on a phone, just to make a free app. Apple is $99, all-in.
The play store (for me) was approx 955 + 25 + 15 to get an app listed.
So no, Apple is probably a less expensive gamble. Especially if you already have access to a mac (rented or paid).
Fair points. It sounds like perhaps your position is more against their opaque and inconsistent application of their policies than the policies themselves which I can agree with.
I’m against the policy itself. If I’m running a flea market, I don’t want it full of hot dog stands. That’s because there is only so much physical space. If I search the App Store for hot dog stands, the space is unlimited. There’s so much they could do there (a/b testing similar apps to find the “best ones” like YouTube, comes to mind). Since there’s no competition, they don’t innovate nor do they see that the old rules don’t and shouldn’t apply. Their search is so bad, it’s a miracle people don’t install malware.
I only use iOS and know way too little about Android. I was under the impression that iOS had more quality apps than Android, just based on personal experience of (quickly and sloppily!) using Android apps. Could you give a few examples of the quality Android apps that are missing on iOS? Would be fun to check out.
The quality overall on iOS is way better than Android. There are obviously going to be a few outliers but I’ve worked at multiple companies where Android is an afterthought (in every way imaginable). I’ve also heard the same from peers in the industry.
iOS apps bring in more money and that absolutely shows in the time and effort companies put into their apps. The big names (FAANG) might have equality but once you leave the top apps the quality difference can be stark.
> Apple is going full frontal attack and saying the DMA creates security risks
Because it does create security risks.
App code in 3rd party app stores is not going to be reviewed, which means anyone is free to craft a rootkit embedded in an app and release it to a 3rd party app store.
> App code in 3rd party app stores is not going to be reviewed, which means anyone is free to craft a rootkit embedded in an app and release it to a 3rd party app store.
Oh no! You mean exactly like it has been on a mac for decades?
It's my understanding that iOS is generally considered a more secure alternative than Android, and that part of this is the app review process, that is part of the App Store. So isn't there at least some truth in that opening this up will create a less secure environment?
I'll add again that while this may have been true at a point (and was covertly marketed into our brains by big apple) it's just not true anymore. It's honestly scary how often i hear this and yet almost no one can say where they actually heard it.
Maybe if you’re using a Pixel with the latest OS updates but the average person like my mom is using some off the shelf budget Chinese/Korean phone full of apps with spammy ads and confusing interface flows. The privacy settings are confusing and unlike my dad who comfortably uses his iPhone my mom has barely scraped the surface because the Samsung OS UI is such a mess (ie, 2 different messaging apps named Messages came preinstalled) and it’s slow, the UI with fonts scaled up for vision hides entire buttons in 3rd party apps (a joy to debug over the phone) etc.
Just this week she had to install a work app for scheduling from Googles Store and got duped into a fake clone that installed 4 other apps with repeated pop up apps emulating a signup wizard.
Those non standard androids are far far more worrying and the Google App Store is way less locked down.
If my dad was in the EU I’d have to tell him never to install an app using anything but the Apple App Store.
Apple has significant restrictions around web content including the fact that up until now you can only use their rendering engine. Chrome on iOS uses Safari under the hood
And the web is far more limited programming wise. As much as there’s experimental webgpu and whatever it’s pretty locked down.
Phones are with you constantly with GPS, movement, cameras, and microphones regularly accessible by apps, sometimes persistently. It’s also a platform handling SMS and Bluetooth and other weakly secure protocols.
The native runtime environment for iOS is significantly more powerful/capable (i.e. less controlled/limited) than a browser sandbox. It would be pointless to have local apps if it wasn't more capable.
That doesn't mean it isn't a sandboxed compared to more traditional computing environments - it just means it's less restrictive than a browser.
Anyway, Apple is conflating the concept of AppStore with ContentFilter. There's no reason why you can't have either one of them, or both from different vendors. Let them provide the bare hardware, and there will be a flourishing market of OS providers, some of which perhaps even more secure than Apple's software offerings.
> Let them provide the bare hardware, and there will be a flourishing market of OS providers,
Why are people so obsessed with "forcing" Apple to adopt the same approach that gave us the dumpster tire fire that is Windows?
If you don't want a device where the hardware and software were designed to work together, just buy from one of the literal thousands of other vendors who took your approach.
Not only that, they're going to try and scare users away from third party app stores with warning dialogs:
> The changes also include new disclosures informing EU users of the risks associated with using alternatives to the App Store’s secure payment processing.
There are 22 instances of the word "risks" on that page. Pathetic.
I think that's kind of the point though - in a free market with sufficient competition, distribution channels would be forced to compete on the quality of their review processes and users would gravitate to the marketplaces that have the best processes and hence the best reputation. So it is not clear that this is true mathematically: you just need one alternate channel with better review processes and for enough users to switch to it for there to be less malware distributed overall.
As it is, there is only one channel and no competition, so we don't know what the malware situation would be like in the absence of Apple's monopoly.
In this case, there is already competition between distribution channels, the issue is predators/malafide behavior who will always be able to run circles around channels.
I suspect that the cost of review is not apparent - review at scale is going to be outsourcing. Thats a whole bunch of contracting, management, and sheer work that new distribution channels will not be able to afford.
Adding competition doesnt help. At some point, it simply creates more vectors of attack.
The situation you describe is better served by a policing force, that stops bad actors.
But there are many other distribution channels for mobile apps, the Google Play Store, F-Droid, etc. Surely "iOS devices" isn't a "market" in and of itself, and the markets are "mobile apps" and "mobile phones".
Why isn't iOS devices a market? It seems that's exactly what Apple /wants/ it to be. They built a platform and now want third parties to sell on that platform so they can get their cut. How do you define market, then, if that's not a market?
Yeah, right. I know there's this tendency in America to worship Europe but I can't help but laugh when anyone suggests a democratic government passes laws that are going to improve security. "We're from the government and we're here to help."
The way that you put it here makes it sound like you have trust issues more than a solid understanding of how democracies (like actual democracies) work and how decisions are made in them.
Yup. They could have security by allowing the user to see and control the sandboxing that the operating system imposes on the apps. The app store is not required, but they act like it is.
They definitely talked with their lawyers and the EU regulators, but this doesn’t mean that where Apple ended up today was mutually agreed. They very likely ended up in disagreement and basically told their EU regulators to take them to court if they don’t like it. This happens all the time.
This made me think of the other recent case against Apple from Epic, where Apple's response to the court was essentially trolling. The judgement required Apple to allow apps to advertise outside marketplaces where users could purchase in-game items. So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperlink), static, reference to an outside payment source on one page in an app, and further added a new term that developers must also pay Apple 27% of all revenue from these off-site purchases.
I'm certain they have the best legal team that money can buy, but I'm equally certain that that legal team is under the sort of pressure that happens when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
> I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much people outside of the HN crowd cares... or even knows what you're talking about for that matter.
No but there are people in the hack news crowd that care about these outcomes. Those people write articles talk to policy makers, discuss these issues at conventions and help to get the word out to other people that have influence who do care. Everything is connected.
I think it matters a little bit less than you think it does. If that were true we would've convinced people to stop using Chrome a long time ago. I've converted maybe two of my normie friends to Firefox, the rest just shrug and move on with their day.
> I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand
I have a lot of Apple kit, and the Vision Pro is hugely tempting. Unfortunately, Apples’ shenanigans the past few years, starting with “we will scan all pictures you want to send to iCloud on your phone” which signalled to me that Apple feels fine about unilaterally altering our agreement whenever they feel like, have increasingly soured me on their brand to the point where we as a household and as a business were discussing to stop purchasing new Apple products and services. Their recent actions, both in terms of their Epic situation as well as their reaction to these new EU regulations, have cemented that decision.
Who will you change to? Pretty much every other company with a mechanism to send photos to the cloud scans your pictures for CSAM right now and nobody cares. They've been doing it for many years. Nobody cares.
Unlike every other cloud photo service, Apple invited community discussion before implementing it. Apple heard the feedback and didn't implement it, but people still criticise Apple as if they did. What should I conclude from this? That criticism of Apple is frequently false, disingenuous and devoid of context?
Pretty much every other comparable mainstream ecosystem has most of the same vices. Most are arguably worse in my opinion. Epic still haven't satisfactorily explained why they haven't pursued Sony or Nintendo with the same arguments.
Since there is only one alternative, I am going to assume that this is a rethorical question designed to invite a discussion about how the alternative is significantly worse in your point of view. Not an interesting debating technique, to be honest.
> Pretty much every other company with a mechanism to send photos to the cloud scans your pictures for CSAM right now and nobody cares. They've been doing it for many years.
There are alternatives available that don't do this, but again, your point appears to be written simply to elicit this specific reponse. Your "pretty much every other company" makes it clear that you are also aware that options exist.
> Nobody cares.
Your next paragraph indicates that, actually, a _lot_ of people cared.
> Apple invited community discussion before implementing it.
Not really. Apple made an announcement, and in the face of an absolute, unmitigated _shitstorm_ of criticism from pretty much _everyone_, they -after fighting an incredibly hard and expensive PR battle- grudgingly called a temporary truce and relented on some of the items they wanted to implement. To frame this as "Apple worked with the community and listened" is... fancy.
The point of that debacle, and this sub-thread, is that Apple is irrepairibly damaging their brand. In the "we will scan all your photos on your device to make sure the content is acceptable" story, they destroyed (literally forever, in the eyes of many people) their branding message that they were on _my_ side, when it comes to privacy and unwanted intrustion of all vendors, including Apple, into my device. That was literally the reason I switched from Android, and by retroactively changing that deal unilaterally on devices I already purchased, they instantly and irrepairably invalidated my only reasons for buying into their overpriced and closed walled garden.
In this new debacle with the EU and their -frankly- childish reponse they once again showed their disdain for their users.
Devolving a discussion into meta commentary about debating techniques is not an interesting debating technique either. There isn't only one other alternative to the Apple ecosystem, I was asking an actual question. It wasn't a rhetorical question. But even if it was, are you seriously saying that rhetorical questions are a point of criticism in persuasive writing? Seriously?
Then you want to take issue with "Nobody cares" as though it was intended to be literal rather than idiomatic. For the record I was being idiomatic. I hope this clarifies things.
As for your alternative interpretation of what went down in the great Apple CSAM scanning controversy, none of what you said strictly conflicts with what I said. The core facts aren't in dispute, but I accept that people interpreted motives differently. Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless? (Apologies for the rhetorical question.) Obviously they wouldn't have. They would have just subtly changed the license terms and implemented it without telling anyone.
It's amazing how quickly people forget why Apple wanted to implement the initial fingerprinting stage on-device, rather than in the cloud as all their major competitors had already done. Disdain for users' privacy, really? Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole point of doing it on device was, as I'm sure you remember, protecting privacy by having industry standard scanning while remaining compatible with end-to-end encryption.
>Do you seriously think Apple would have made a big song and dance about their proposal around CSAM scanning if the intent was to implement it regardless?
I think the reason why people are angry at Apple in spite of their climbdown is because Apple did a lot of damage announcing it the way they did.
Far from "inviting a debate" on how or whether this can be done in a safe and privacy friendly way, they made an announcement explaining exactly what they were going to do and how it was going to work.
The message was received loud and clear by politicians who are up against critics disputing the technical feasibility of surveilling the entire population in a safe and privacy friendly way.
Apple has dealt a hammer blow to privacy advocates. The effects of Apple's announcement have been percolating through parliaments and law enforcement agencies all over the world ever since.
Add to that the effects of Apple's side-loading ban, which is hands complete control over what software people can and cannot install to authoritarian rulers across the planet, their decision to hand over Chinese iCloud operations (including encryption keys) to a state owned company, and their willingness to make questionable security claims in defense of their own business model.
The picture that emerges is not pretty.
At the same time, Apple provides privacy protections to hundereds of millions of people who would not otherwise have them - realistically speaking.
If mobile OS competition was between Google, Microsoft and Samsung, there would not be a setting to blanket disable all tracking requests. Markets often end up in an equilibrium where certain choices simply don't exist.
Regulating this space without doing more harm than good is very difficult. We're going to have to wait and see whether the EU has done a good job this time.
The olden days equivalent of the HN crowd (Slashdot? Kuro5hin?) hated Microsoft's behaviour but had to build on their platforms because there wasn't an alternative that would pay the bills. So Microsoft kept raking in profits and probably thought that everything was OK and there wasn't an issue.
But that ill-feeling meant that as soon as an alternative emerged (in this case Apple, powered by open-source, Unix, the web - and later smartphones with the iPhone and Android) there was an exodus and Microsoft's attempts to regain ground (IIS, Windows Phone) were widely ignored.
Apple is on the same ground now (and I say this as an Apple-lover). They are pulling in huge amounts of money through their behaviour but I have no doubt, as soon as an alternative appears (probably through some platform shift) they will come to regret it.
UPDATE: and it would be ironic if the Vision Pro was the thing that triggered the platform shift. If the Vision Pro works well as a Mac alternative (a proper productivity environment but with an infinite screen), once others implement the same idea effectively (and maybe not quite as well as Apple has) it could be the catalyst for developers (and hence apps) jumping ship.
>when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
Being a Mac user since the 90's, it is unfortunate what Apple has become. However, this is often happens when a charismatic leader leaves the company (in one way or another). From what is seen in the the process of how so many startup at YC went from little company to transnational corporation, and what people's reaction to them have changed over the course of the year as well as the influence of funding and corporate culture has on a company are also very telling.
Now days I'm sticking to linx BSD F-Droid for personal stuff even though they are not as user friendly in the UI aspect.
> However, this is often happens when a charismatic leader leaves the company
This has absolutely nothing to do with a charismatic leader or founder.
Steve Jobs was notoriously the most hard-ass negotiator you'd ever meet. The way Apple is dealing with the EU here is probably exactly how he would have done it, or maybe he might have been even worse.
He created incredibly user-friendly machines, but in the business world he was incredibly ruthless.
And you can kind of see this in the their culture. Everything is, our way, or the highway. I feel bad for people that have to work in that poisonous environment.
When you come from a place of "We have all the right answers and your views don't matter" like how Steve Jobs operated, you can see the harm that mind set is causing in the world today.
It has little to do with a charismatic leader. If you don’t think Jobs would have been worse then let’s not forget Jobs wasn’t even in favor of the App Store in the first place.
It has everything to do with when a company is an outsider it tries to be consumer friendly, but then when it becomes the dominant player then it adopts all the characteristics all dominant players do of trying to attract as much rent from their business as they can, users be damned.
This is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the matter at hand. Mainly floated around by Sweeny as he practices his best Pikachu face.
> So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperlink), static, reference to an outside payment source on one page in an app
They allow an actual button that links directly to a website[0].
I mean the article by Apple that describes the terms and options literally is titled “Distributing apps in the U.S. that provide an external purchase link” and there a plenty of examples provided.
> and further added a new term that developers must also pay Apple 27% of all revenue from these off-site purchases.
Both the district court[1] as well as the appellate court that later affirmed the ruling[2] spelled out in clear plain language that developers would still owe Apple the commission, that Apple would be able to audit developers and that it’s all legal because its payment for the use of Apple’s IP.
Only difference is that the courts assumed Apple would simply charge 30% instead of the discounted 27%.
Some examples:
> In essence, Apple uses the DPLA to license its IP to developers in exchange for a $99 fee and an ongoing 30% commission on developers' iOS revenue.
> As the district court noted, in a world where Apple maintains its distribution restriction but payment processing is opened up, Apple would still be contractually entitled to its 30% commission on in-app purchasers. Apart from any argument by Epic, the district court "presume[d]" that Apple could "utilize[e] a contractual right to audit developers ... to ensure compliance with its commissions."
> Because the court upheld the app-distribution restriction, Apple would still be entitled to its 30% commission on in-app purchases within apps downloaded from the App Store. On its own initiative, the district court floated the idea of Apple permitting multiple in-app payment processors while reserving a right to audit developers to ensure compliance with the 30% commission.
> Suffice it to say, IAP is not merely a payment processing system, as Epic Games suggests, but a comprehensive system to collect commission and manage in-app payments.
> First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple's intellectual property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
I’m sure not only does Apple have a host of lawyers working on understanding this specific regulation but they have gone through the process of developing rigorous estimates of the costs and benefits of compliance vs litigation. Given the size of Apple’s market and the potential for other countries to follow suit with their own regulations pending these cases, they have likely deemed compliance to be extremely costly to their business. In that case, their potential budget for fighting this may be enormous.
Oh yeah, it was an aside. I'm not worried about the world-leading US and Asian incumbents. Expensive regulations help incumbents. I'm more worried about the local EU companies that play in this market. Or I would be, something mysterious (sotto voce probably regulatory expenses) put them out of business.
That's the thing about the DMA. These provisions only apply if you hit a certain extreme market presence. These regulations do not apply to those small companies.
It's a common law perspective really (writing from the UK) - laws are interpreted by judges and that forms a body of past cases which 'fill in the gaps' so to speak, and become the rule for the future. In contrast to civil law in much of Europe which attempts to codify everything, leaving nothing to interpretation. (I'm no expert - I don't know what happens when they come across a gap, the proceedings are suspended until legislators full it in I suppose?)
A US-centric perspective, stereotypically, would be like 'my Starbucks coffee is too cold, I am suing'. You can have common law without sue-happy individuals.
The difference is that precedent can guide a judge's decision, it doesn't force it.
Likewise in civil law the judge isn't simply a referee, they're meant to actively investigate. While in common law lawyers get to do a big show by asking various questions, in civil law the questions are asked by the judge and the lawyers only exist to make an argument.
Eh. I think "break the rules and see what happens" has been a _very_ common means of GDPR 'compliance' in Europe, in general. Worked, too, at least for a while; the first fines >100million only showed up in 2022 or so.
Yeah, if you can afford normal lawyers they attempt to make the company comply with the law, if you can afford Apple lawyers they attempt to make the law comply with Apple’s interests. They will eventually implement something specific the EU tells them and receive a fine but for now it is worth trying it on and messing the EU around to try to water down what this law eventually means.
Note: while legislators can chose to accept lesser terms, "leave it" means they follow up with the legal repercussions for non-compliance. Apple's only "leave it" move would be pulling out of the EU, which is an unlikely response.
Apple will as shown here do their best to comply the least with the intent of the legislation, but it's up to the legislators if it is acceptable.
E.g., if notarization turns out to be used for central gate keeping by declining specific apps in the human review step or by using it to impede the process for apps intended for third-party stores, that would be a violation.
I think this fits the intent of EU regulators. The DMA is essentially a tariff on American tech companies. A European company could now fork android and have a locked down App Store with large fees, without complying with DMA (as it only applies to certain companies the EU does not like).
Remember that Meta actually followed GDPR law in terms of getting constent for personalised ads, and the irish courts even said that Meta was doing things legally, and then the EU courts decided Meta was actually doing illegal things, and fined Meta.
So there can be multiple layers to this, and ultimately I don't think the EU really works as a robust legal system any more, there are so many politically driven cases where the courts follow the politics not the law.
Ireland is trying to attract overseas businesses by being as "business friendly" as possible even if it means shafting local businesses and workers. This includes half-assing any EU regulations to the fullest extent possible and having very low taxes. The Irish DPA is a prime example of this.
"The first thing to note is that no one — including Apple — knows if this plan abides by the DMA. This is, unfortunately, par for the course for the European Union. Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, with various carve-outs and definitions, and it is up to the companies impacted to figure out how to meet them; only then do the powers-that-be decide whether or not said company is in compliance. This is, needless to say, an insane way to write regulations, but when you consider the E.U.’s insistence on contradictory end goals — increasing competition while insisting on an absolutist approach to user privacy, for example — you can understand how the burden ends up falling on companies to come up with their own solutions. This also, needless to say, opens up the door to massive loopholes (like the fact that Apple believes it can still enforce App Tracking Transparency restrictions on apps not in the App Store)."
During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan.
I'm reasonably sure Apple didn't reveal most of their compliance plans to EU, since they will ask Apple to implement the most strict interpretation of the regulation and it would be headaches in the court if there's any evidence that Apple knowingly ignored such requests.
> During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation
Given that Apple had already been shipping standard USB C ports with zero restrictions starting with the 2021 iPad Pro, this conspiracy theory made no sense.
Apple markets the iPad Pro as a general purpose computer, like a MacBook, where dual ended USB-C connectivity is taken for granted (in part due to Apple).
Given different roles and low numbers of iPad Pro's vs. iPhones, I don't think any cross over assumptions can be made.
> Apple could view an iPad Pro as needing USB-C ports
The iPad Air as well as the plain old iPad had also gotten standard USB C ports with zero restrictions before this particular conspiracy theory became popular.
This has been reported by multiple media outlets where some of them are known to be fairly reputable. You gotta understand that there's a good chance of this being genuine if a EU commissioner seriously reacted to, instead render it a "conspiracy theory" reflexively.
The outlets all echoed the same leak by one “supply chain specialist”.
None of them were from confirmed sources or even cross referenced.
As for a commissioner seriously reacting to it; your local police department is more professional when it comes to commenting on active investigations.
They mainly act like politicians that want to look though in crime. Vestager is a great example of how much PR the average commissioner is willing to utilize, even when they get wiped out of court.
Apple still hasn't denied or even commented on the matter, even though it could play a very significant role on future potential antitrust cases against Apple. Also, it's worth noting that Apple has a long and rich history of public campaigns against many of those "conspiracy theories" and this USB-C case is a rare exception.
Apple doesn't need to issue a denial for every conspiracy theory that rolls around. The fact that people are still bringing up a mere rumor as if it's true definitely lends credence to this being nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
> Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan
Source? This has conspiracy theory written all over it. My take is that the rumor mill was just flat out wrong about this like they often are.
EDIT: To be clear here, I don’t deny that an EU commissioner sent a letter but I doubted the existence of these secret (and rumored) plans that prompted it e.g. seems out of character for Apple given iPads have had USB C for some time without such restrictions.
hi, I also read this website and sometimes comment on it. after I read your comment, I ran the query “apple usb-c eu commissioner warning” through an internet search engine, and I found this article – https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li...
> It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect.
I would posit that a commenter with a sincere wish to dispel “conspiracy theories” might instead take a moment to do that search themselves instead of posting this (pardon me) inflammatory remark!
I would gladly say you’re welcome – yet I believe your edit exacerbates the issue
you speak of a “secret” Made For iPhone program as if that’s still some conspiracy – https://mfi.apple.com/
my read of the article is that the EU commissioner advised Apple that if the company attempted to negate the USB-C regulations by only allowing full access to Apple devices connected via a cable with an Apple-approved MFi chip… that indeed they would be held accountable by the EU. had that been the case, it would be Apple continuing its regime of connector control over its users’ devices, as it has done up til now by insisting on MFi-certified Lightning cables
Honestly, I regret raising the point - sorry. The existence of the MFI programme isn't the problem. Just that Apple was planning on enforcing it on a USB C iPhone when they didn't on iPad. I could never imagine this situation: an Apple Store employee explaining to a customer why their iPhone won't charge with the same generic USB C cable that charges their iPad when they both share the same port.
Seems right up Apple's alley to me. They're about to geofence all these App Store changes to the EU, after all. Would make complete sense for them to hobble the USB ports on iPhones despite the existence the iPad which disproves the infeasibility of a fully-features USB port for iOS.
Seems like this is going to become increasingly common as Apple clings to their rent-seeking practices in every jurisdiction that dawdles on antitrust enforcement.
hey, fwiw, I don’t regret your raising it, and I appreciate that you’ve been engaging with me :)
I would love for this thread to accomplish something other than meta rifraff, so — I’ve never worked as an Apple Store floor sales person, but:
> In the 90's, a USB cable was just four braided wires – literal copper wires which link copper pins in your [computer] with your [printer]. Two of them carried the data, and the other carried power and ground. This worked, and it was an affordable, easy-to-implement standard which spread like dandelion seeds on the wind.
> Now in the 2020's, we have USB-C. Have you ever had a kind of “friend” who tries to be “everything to everyone“? Well, that‘s USB-C.
> We fixed some things with USB A and mini – er, micro – B, like how hard they were to plug in, and how you invariably seemed to find yourself holding them upside down more than 50% of the time!
> And, well, engineers being engineers, and USB standing for universal serial bus, we tried to also solve all other problems at the same time. Like you couldn’t use a USB cable for video, or to power an air fryer.
> So, these days, USB cables are more than braids of copper wire. They are “active” cables! meaning they have a microchip inside. Even our cables became little computers.
> And we kept backwards compatibility with USB, so that if you use a plug adapter, you can take an original 90’s USB mouse and plug it right into your brand new iPhone n±1!
> Or nowadays, you might grab the wrong cable in your kitchen, and plug your toaster oven into your iPhone. yikes! I know you came in to the store today with a simple-seeming question, and we’ve been standing here now for minutes, and I apologize – but now I hope I can answer your question about why this cable isn’t recognized by your new phone.
> When an active cable is plugged in, the chip inside the cable “negotiates” with the chip inside the device. For a device you hold in your hand and use without thinking about it, like your phone, we have made the negotiator more stringent than we did in our tablet. :)
I love USB-C. Its awesome with one cable I'm able to plug in multiple different models of computer to my monitor and get 3440x1440 160Hz + multiple USB 3.0 + audio + 65W power. Or go to my desk at work and plug into my dock and get multi monitors + gig networking + multiple USB ports + audio + 90W power. I'll take that over proprietary dock connectors any day.
I love that the same power adapter I use to charge one computer works with all my computers, my portable game console, my headphones, my portable speaker, my phone, my tablet, my flashlight, my battery bank, and more. I like that the USB-C port in my car can natively charge my laptop, at least when asleep/powered off, without needing an AC inverter to run a 19V brick.
There's no way you're going to convince me my life with dozens different sizes of barrel power adapters with different voltages/polarizations, micro + mini USB, and more proprietary power connectors were better. You're never going to convince me having the vendor lock-in of proprietary laptop docks was better than just a single cable to do it all. I can't wait to retire my last few barrel-type power devices.
Well, generally speaking, you can't use "just a single cable". Because a USB-C cable only carrying a power charge would still technically be a USB-C cable. And you would never know until you tried to connect your display with it
I do use a single cable in that it's just one cable coming from my monitor or dock. It's just one charging adapter in my bag. So generally speaking I am just plugging in a single cable to my monitor or carrying a single charger in my backpack. I'm not plugging in power, HDMI, network, and a USB hub separately every time I hop from one desk to another, just plug the one cable on the desk and it's good to go.
Sure, I'm not literally talking about a single cable I'm taking from one port to another port, but the fact I can just plug my laptop into my monitor and get all of that is awesome. And if I bought a good cable I could totally do that. The fact I'm able to charge all my devices off my laptop charger is awesome. The fact one could cheap out and buy a cable that wouldn't work with all the features of the monitor/laptop link doesn't make that less awesome. I just use the included cables with the docks or what not or make sure to buy a cable that does what I need if replacing/upgrading and it's not a problem.
You're still not convincing me the existence of cheap cables that can't do it all makes having several different cables and power adapters a better time. In one case you're absolutely forced to have them be separate every time, in another it's only that they're separate if you're buying cheap bullshit online from trash vendors.
> I do use a single cable in that it's just one cable coming from my monitor or dock.
I do, too. However, what I wrote is a fact. Almost everything in the USB-C spec is optional, and you can't deduce which optional parts a USB-C cable supports from the cable alone.
I'm not just constantly picking up random cables off the street and trying to use it to connect my monitor. While what you're saying is true, you're practically describing a non-issue. Devices usually come with a cable that matches its capabilities, and if you're replacing it just check the capabilities when you buy the replacement cable. Don't buy random cables, keep cables related to their usage (aka leave the cable plugged into the dock or monitor, or at least near it), and its not a problem. I keep my charge-only cable with the battery bank, the laptop power adapter has a fixed cable on the brick, I keep the cable plugged into the dock and the screen, I keep a cable that meets the specs needed for Android Auto in the car, and I'm never confused about what goes where.
For your link, this is a good vendor. They're (presumably) accurately describing the features of the cable. If it matches your needs, buy it! But clearly its specs don't meet my needs for my monitor, so I wouldn't buy it if I was replacing the cable for my monitor. Not that I even needed to buy a separate cable, the dock/monitor/etc all came with cables that matched the device's needs and have so far lasted many years. Use the included cable and it is not a problem. The line about "cheap bullshit from trash vendors" are vendors selling cables that don't meet their listed specs on the store listing. Which is why I don't buy cables from AliExpress or Amazon or others, I can't trust the cable to be what it says it is.
Even back in the day pre-USB-C you'd still have to check the specs on the cable. What voltage does your laptop run at? How many watts is it going to pull? What size barrel? Polarity? If I reached into a bin full of various "laptop chargers", what are the odds it would work with your device? Pretty damn slim! And what are the odds that power brick would charge your phone as well? Zero!
Reach into a bin full of USB-C-based laptop chargers, what are the odds it'll work with your USB-C laptop? Extremely high! What are the odds it'll charge your phone as well? Extremely high!
Which experience is better?
This whole issue is largely because we're starting to get to the point where the data transfer speeds we're hoping for is getting pretty insane from a physics standpoint, and it doesn't make sense for every cable to be built to that level. If I'm getting a cable that I know I'm only ever going to want to charge a few watt device off of, I don't need it to be built to the spec of many many gigabits of throughput. This is even getting to be true with digital video cables in general. I've got some DisplayPort cables on my desk here. What max resolution and refresh rate do they support? How about these HDMI cables? Did they even bother listing their specs on the sheathing? Nope! But should they have just created a new connector every few years requiring all new cables and have monitors with a dozen different ports on them?
I'd say having different cable specs that are clearly known when originally sold is an OK compromise for continued growth without needing new connectors. This issue of "not all cables support all things" as some reason why the old way of having a million different cables and connectors was better is focusing on such a tiny problem compared to how much better practically everything else is. Are you seriously arguing for the barrel and other proprietary connectors, different power adapters for everything? Are you seriously arguing for having either proprietary docks or needing to plug in several cables going from one desk to another?
In the end, I am using one cable to connect my laptop to my whole desk setup, right now. This is better than the past where the same setup would have required a bunch of cables. Sure, I do have other cables in the house that would physically connect but not do all the things, but once again that never happens because I'm not trying to use only one cable that I don't know the specs on to try and do everything. And FWIW, I could do that "one cable to do everything" if I picked the right cable at the start. I could just use this cable on the monitor to charge at the nightstand, in the car, with the battery bank, to charge all my other devices, etc.
It's exactly what you're talking about. Pick a random cable and show it doesn't meet all potential possibilities of USB-C, that seems to be your entire point. That not all cables can do everything as if it's some critical failure of USB-C. I'm never just ending up with some random cable that I didn't already know the specs on, so it's a non-issue.
Like, cool, you found a USB-C cable I can't use with my monitor. So I won't buy that one, I'll buy a different one. They're clearly spec'd on nice retailers, so buying the right one isn't an issue, once again unless you're with crappy stores.
This big "issue" is way better of a problem than how things were before. I'll take this trade any day.
They definitely consulted a bunch of lawyers. The App Store makes on the order of $100B profit annually. Given that, a reasonable budget for consulting lawyers - on a matter which may result in them losing a substantial amount of that profit - would be massive. Even $1B in attorney fees would be a tiny price to pay to protect that.
Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were checking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get away with.
You can hold a negotiation and still screw the other side over afterwards - isn't that actually the best way to do it? Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent has in their hand is just a better way to play any game.
Thanks for pointing this out. App Store sales (not profit) for 2020 was estimated at around $64B. Apple apparently does not make the profits from the App Store public.
From my own experiences and plenty of others their so called moderators are crap. App Store review process is total bullshit most of the time, and yet they still end up with scam/trash apps on the store.
Besides, how many app updates are there per day? The amount they pay an app reviewer x n reviewers is going to be _nothing_, a drop in the bucket of what they make from the app store overall.
App Store is a cash cow so they'll protect it viciously; I expect Apple will win this one through their usual gaslighting/cult personalities unless EU is willing to come down hard enough on 'em. Ban sales of Apple products that do not conform, easy.
It doesn't affect consumers in any negative way, only positive.
I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, for 2023 their net income was $97b. At some point the tax stuff won't be possible, and it will be even less than that. Apple's gross profit was $169b, which excludes a lot of stuff, but even then I don't think it's possible over half of it would be from the App Store.
Apple stated "App Store revenue generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022, 90% of which was commission-free." [1]
10% was not commission-free. App Store commissions are between 15% and 30% depending on the size of the developer. That would be between $165B and $330B revenue for Apple from commissions.
Nobody knows how profitable the App Store is to Apple. "It’s a question that investors would love to know the answer to, because it addresses the entire business model of the App Store. Apple does not disclose any detailed financial results of the App Store,". "Barnes calculated that the App Store had hefty profit margins, which increased to 78% in 2019, up from 75% in 2018" [2]
App Store revenue is still growing (not least with inflation) so the number of 2023 was likely even higher.
~80% margin on $165-$330B revenue in 2022 would be $132-$264B. So my original number of $100B may actually have been on the low side.
How can something be so wrong and still being upvoted on HN is totally beyond me.
From [1] ( The Link you referenced )
>This $1.1 trillion breaks down as $910 billion in total billings and sales from the sale of physical goods and services, $109 billion from in-app advertising and $104 billion for digital goods and services.
They take 15% to 30% of $104 Billion. That is at best $31.2B. In case this isn't even clear. Apple collect ZERO on the $910 physical goods and services such as Uber and ZERO on the $109 In-App Advertising revenue.
>~80% margin on $165-$330B revenue in 2022 would be $132-$264B. So my original number of $100B may actually have been on the low side.
It is 80% margin on the at best $31.2B revenue. Not the $104 Billion Sales.
Apple reported FY 2022 Services Revenue as $78B. You cant have a Net Profits more than your total Services Revenue Income.
If 90% of billings were commission-free, that means $110 billion had Apple's commission applied to it. 110 * 0.3 = 33 billion of revenue at most, or 16.5 billion if we use the 15% commission.
It's interesting that Apple seem to be including (estimated) sales of physical goods (i.e. Amazon) and subscriptions (i.e. Netflix) that are billed entirely outside the App Store.
I guess that since those apps came from the App Store to begin with, they are counting that as revenue that the App Store "generated"? Talk about playing word games.
According to the TC article you linked, Apple previously released this figure phrased as sales that it "facilitated"[1]. A much more accurate, and far less braggadocios descriptor.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but I see a huge difference between "generated" and "facilitated". Bad Apple.
> Apple also said iOS app developers have earned more than $320 billion on the App Store from 2008 to 2022, a jump from the $260 billion reported in 2021.
> Apple says its App Store ecosystem generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022
I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements. It's been a long day, but what am I missing to make sense of this?
Apple is including money developers make that they don't get a cut of.
For example, Spotify makes money from people streaming music to iOS devices, but they do not allow you to upgrade from a free account to a Premium account through their iOS app.
Since Spotify handles subscription purchases outside of their iOS app and their app is free, they pay nothing to Apple under the current system.
Isn't Spotify one of the "special" companies that Apple bent to and gave an exception just for them?
Afaik, pointing users to subscriptions and payments outside of the app is explicitly not allowed. Telling the user it's cheaper to buy outside the app is not allowed, etc. Such blatantly predatory rules, I'm surprised it's taken this long for a wider discussion to start about it.
I guess it's because whenever you ask people that buy Apple gear they're all "That's fine! Don't you shit talk Apple, they can do what they want! They do what's best for us!" Stockholm syndrome lmao.
> Isn't Spotify one of the "special" companies that Apple bent to and gave an exception just for them?
Nope. Under the old rules any company with a free app used to access subscription content didn't have to pay anything unless they took payments through their app.
Netflix would be another example.
> pointing users to subscriptions and payments outside of the app is explicitly not allowed
It's definitely allowed now, since that's the only point on which Epic won their case vs. Apple.
Apple is being disingenuous. The App Store didn't "generate" those "billings and sales". That number includes physical goods and subscriptions that didn't go through Apple.
They used to report this number as sales they "facilitated". A far more accurate descriptor. But now that they are engaged in a PR battle with various governments they have taken to embellishment.
>The Company’s total net sales were $383.3 billion and net income was $97.0 billion during 2023.
Because $97B is < $100B, it is impossible for AAPL to have earned $100B net income just from the App Store (because we also know its other divisions do not lose money, again according to the 10-K they filed).
You can put an even stricter limit on it than that - net sales for services is listed as $85B, and they state
> Therefore, the Company accounts for all third-party application–related sales on a net basis by recognizing in Services net sales only the commission it retains.
So the commissions are <=$85B. Given the $1.1T number is from Apple, that implies the average commission rate is <15% (many categories of app excluded from commissions perhaps?).
They list gross margin for services to be $60B but I don't see where they break down net profit with greater granularity or "per division" (the word division does not seem to appear in the 10-K). For example they could make $80B in App Store commission, sell $5B in other services, make $80B in profit from commission, but lose $20B on other services, and that would still be consistent with the numbers in the 10-K, right? And those numbers presumably don't include indirectly related operating expenses which totaled $55B.
Apple has not revealed how profitable the App Store really is, but either way it's a LOT of profit, certainly enough to warrant expensive attorneys and stalling implementing this legislation in good faith for as long as possible.
> The App Store makes on the order of $100B profit annually.
> Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions.
Geeze, that's a lot of money. Out of curiosity, how bribeable are EU regulators? If this were the US, they'd just make a few campaign donations and it'd all go away and the citizens would just shrug at the business as usual in DC.
Do EU regulators typically have more integrity and teeth?
EU regulators are civil servants, and in the EU at least this makes them nominally non political, so campaign donations won't work.
But you can always offer to look after them when they retire. Give them a nice non-exec role, or perhaps make them vice‑president of global affairs and communications....
Whilet he parent's point is correct, note that Nick Clegg is not and never was a EU civil servant (although he was a member of the European Parliament when the UK was still in the EU).
Whilst I know he was a curious example, he was obviously a high profile one.
According to the linked article he actually did work for the European Commission (part of the EU executive) as a civil servant.
"He took up a post at the European Commission in April 1994, working in the TACIS aid programme to the former Soviet Union. For two years, Clegg was responsible for developing direct aid programmes in Central Asia and the Caucasus worth €50 million. He was involved in negotiations with Russia on airline overflight rights, and launched a conference in Tashkent in 1993 that founded TRACECA—an international transport programme for the development of a transport corridor for Europe, the Caucasus and Asia. Vice-President and Trade Commissioner Leon Brittan then offered him a job in his private office, as a European Union policy adviser and speechwriter. As part of this role, Clegg was in charge of the EC negotiating team on Chinese and Russian accession talks to the World Trade Organization.[33]"
While it's good to assume that everyone is bribeable at some price, in the EU there is no clear legal way to do so. In particular, campaign contributions are highly limited in all EU countries (typically around a thousand euro per person I believe), and typically only open to individuals, not corporations or other legal entities.
To be fair they were going to license the tech but instead hired employees of the company whose tech they said they were interested in buying. Allegedly. It is quite often just worth going to court and settling rather than paying extortionate fees forever. It’s very unlikely at Apple’s scale a court will give them a percentage of sale price of an Apple Watch as the headline number would just be too large.
That's now, at some point at in the past their lawyers probably said It's all going to be fine, put the sensor and make it a main feature of the product.
Look at the long list of massive fines levied on the US tech giants for GDPR violations [1]. Every one of them consulted lawyers (and likely substantially ignored their advice).
So, why do you think Apple is doing this? Presumably their lawyers aren't stupid and Apple does not want to be fined 10% of their worldwide annual turnover.
I believe giving into China was a mistake for Apple executives ethically, commercially and politically.
In the long term they’ll be forced to give up all the commercial surpluses to local mega apps by the government, and the political/ethical problems require no elaboration.
Yep, the app store is also very profitable for them so they can afford to have this go to the courts. They want the minimum amount of regulation possible, so they first lobby the regulators to apply as little regulation as possible and that the regulation that is applied is as vague as possible.
Then when it comes time for implementation, they make an implementation that isn't exactly 100% in accordance with the regulation and wait to be taken to court. Then they get to argue with a judge related to what is and isn't in accordance with the regulation. If they get lucky, the judge will rule partly to them, which gives them less strict regulation.
The EU lawmakers can then re-vamp the law to make it stricter, and the process continues again.
For the same reason Trump has opened so many legal challenges in his trials. It's a stalling tactic. Every year Apple can continue their App Store business monopoly without adequate competition is another year Apple earns $100B (or whatever their profit is - Apple does not disclose the figures [1]). They are trying to delay any threat to that as long as possible. No doubt they have done their cost/benefit calculations very carefully, weighing the potential fines and legal fees against the revenue they will be able to keep earning this way, and they have decided this is the best way forward.
If you can find specific numbers on Apple's profit from the App Store, I would be very interested to see them. Of course Apple's total profit is public information, but they don't break it down so specifically. The best I can find is that App Store revenue is on the order of $100B, but the profit margin has not been disclosed (though speculated by Epic to be ~80% [1]).
• Apple makes 100% of its profit from the App Store.
• This profit comes equally from the US, EU, China, and the entire rest of the world. (It doesn't, the EU is a smaller market.)
• Half of EU users would stop using the App Store entirely if they were allowed to side-load.
• Apple's keeps 75% of its revenue as profit.
By my calculations, this would mean Apple's EU App Store monopoly is worth 9.375% of the company's worldwide revenue. Please let me know if I made an error in my math.
Why is Apple willing to risk 10% of its worldwide revenue to protect 9.375% of its worldwide revenue?
Okay, I guess maybe Apple thinks it's unlikely to be fined the maximum amount, and is willing to roll the dice. But I also chose ludicrously favorable numbers here.
The EU is "leading in regulation", which means often, regulation (especially in the area of customer protection) is first introduced in Europe, then other jurisdiction follow that are at least "inspired" (think: lazy copy and paste of at least parts) by it.
This can be a positive effect for the world overall, but it is also annoying that some EU politicians describe that as (and confuse it with) "innovation".
As a European citizen, I approve of things like killing of cellphone roaming fees and forcing adapter uniformity (I wish they also enforced power plug uniformity across the EU's 27 member states).
Considering that the Google bribe to Apple for search is $18B, I can't see the App Store profit margin being 80%. That would imply that Apple makes zero margin on all hardware and other services.
Their profit? Yes. They are required to account for that by law.
But they don't break that down by revenue stream in a way that would be useful. This is by design: Apple doesn't want people sniffing around and wondering what things would be like in a world where Apple had to sell their technology piecemeal. It'd be like demanding to know how much profit Apple made from selling macOS vs. Macintosh computers. Everything's one giant bundle, why calculate things separately? Are you trying to force us to unbundle shit?
You can be assured that Apple internally knows the margins on everything they make as well as Services. I think that there's several reasons they don't disclose discrete sales figures and profit margins. This would give competitors a good idea of where to attack Apple.
They and Google have a duopoly on smartphone operating systems. Both use anti-competitive tactics to maintain the duopoly.
Anti-trust law probably needs to be updated to take platforms into account. In the past (pre-software), the first sale doctrine provided a decent check valve on this sort of crap.
It was the idea that, if you sold a thing to a person, then you no longer owned it. I think the "first-" part of the name is there because anti-resale provisions were commonly tacked onto an agreement between the manufacturer and initial purchaser.
For instance, a tractor manufacturer would put a trademarked logo on a copyrighted picture on the side of a patented gear box, and then, as part of the condition of the sale to the farmer, they'd say the trademark, copyright and patent licenses were non-transferrable.
The courts correctly ruled that this was bullshit, and banned it. We need to go back to something like that. Then (since the DMCA would be ruled unenforceable, and things like the CFAA would apply to device manufacturers), you'd be able to modify your phone, and the manufacturer would not be allowed to retaliate.
At that point, Google and Apple's duopoly would give them a lot less market power. For one thing, once Google "sold" android to phone manufacturers, they couldn't use contracts to prevent the manufacturers from making a mozilla phone, etc, like they do today. Similarly, iPhone parts couldn't contain mechanisms preventing their use in other devices, because hardware DRM would not only be unprotected by the DMCA, but flat-out illegal.
I suspect most people agree with your sentiments, but not with them phrased as Apple-specific royal decrees, as apposed to general principles.
Anti-competitive law continually lags behind accelerating cycles of tech ecosystem centralization, while the scale and number of these ecosystems goes up, and the number of significant competitors in each goes down.
The "open internet" is now a myriad of visible and invisible gates, walls, dossiers, coordinated action, coercive frictions, manipulative "services", and taxes scaling on our productivity (instead of proportional to value provided to us), raised by fewer and fewer owners operating across more and more dimensions of our lives.
Flagging is just if you get downvoted enough, really. Posting spicy enough takes will generally get you flagged, but that's just how it goes sometimes.
FWIW I largely agree with you; a duopoly is only one more choice than a monopoly, and both Google and Apple have done a variety of things that annoy me. If I could pick a third option I would, but it's essentially impossible to enter the market at this point.
Yeah this is brutal for any truly free app that risks getting popular. The only exceptions are for "Nonprofit organizations, accredited educational institutions, and government entities", so I guess at least Mozilla will find a way to distribute Firefox.
Wait what? The nonprofit organisation thing seems very significant. That makes it fairly easy to get around if you’re just developing an app for fun, or for open source organisations to get apps distributed.
So what are we left with? Apps where users are the product, like Facebook, and freemium apps where you end up paying to get anything useful done with it anyway. Apps where the parent company is making millions if not billions. Is anybody upset that those guys have to chip in for iOS development?
I personally think Apples approach is the lesser of two evils. We don’t pay for OS explicitly anymore. But look at Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway. I’d rather it be through fees on apps than more insidious approaches.
And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates for old phones. And we know that’s a real issue. As long as we pay through app fees the phone makers are incentivised to keep releasing OS updates for old phones.
I wouldn't call that "fairly easy" in most senses of the term.
For instance I didn't even have an idea of what's required in my place to get recognized as non-profit. And it turns out it's specific to each region, and I need to go ask for the paperwork in the first place.
If the requirement is really a non profit legal status, Apple just raised the bar from "apps that just make no money" to "apps that registered to their local governing bodies that they have a goal of not making money", and that's a huge leap with a crazy high barrier for a random dev (imagine a kid in uni) to push a free app.
In the academic/semi-governmental, it was often easier to set up a non-profit in the US and get things for free (e.g. Slack) than to figure out how to do billing for them in a rigid system that wants POs
Here in the US at least we have the concept of "fiscal sponsorship" in the non-profit space. A registered non-profit organization acts as sponsor for smaller groups and projects. The activities still have to be compliant, but the small groups don't have to go through the expense of setting up a free-standing organization. The Linux Foundation does this for quite a few open source software projects, for example. This is likely a good model for open source apps in this situation.
That depends... I don't know the situation in the EU, but based on personal experience in the US:
If you are expecting less than $25k in revenue (donations, grants, program service revenue, etc.) in each of your first three years, you can use the IRS's abbreviated process and get setup within a month (for the cost of setting up a corporation with your state government). If that exemption doesn't apply, it can take the IRS over a year to approve your application for tax exempt status. There are also significant compliance costs that can be burdensome for a small organization.
The TLF is a big dog for big dog projects, and I was just using them as an example of the structure. The Apache Foundation has their own flavor of governance, as does Numfocus (which sponsors a bunch of scientific computing projects). I'd expect that this move will probably trigger the creation of some "mobile app developer collective" organizations that specialize in this kind of thing, kind of like a "digital makerspace".
Assuming there is some legal framework allowing a smaller entity to piggy back on Mozilla or the Linux Foundation's non profit registration in the developer's country, the dev still needs to at least register as an official entity, which can be awkward depending on their status (do student visa residents get a right to do that for instance ?). There's also the more complex cases of a for profit business publishing an open-source app. Do they need to register a different non profit entity to avoid paying for the open source part then ?
To then explain to Apple how the arrangement is made and have them approve it is another story as well, as we're already seeing that Apple has no intention to make things simple regarding any of these rules.
All in all, there will be clear cut cases that will show it can be simple, but I totally see a long tail of devs stopped at any point of the process, and it's probably by design.
There is no mandatory government registration of non-profits in Sweden. You can get a like a tradename protection by registering like a company name. Suppose you would like to start a non-profit or any other organization. You need a yearly meeting to take the signed protocol to your local bank if you need an account.
If you like to have an organizationalnumber, you need to apply to the tax authority. If you do business activity and like a local name protection you need to apply to bolagsverket. Depending on the size of the app these steps might be helpful. I don't think our local chapter of FSF, has done any of the registrations just as an example. They run local conferences and other simular works.
Gaming apps. A huge majority of Apple's revenue (from IAP) came from gaming purchases. This would continue to be the case. A gaming app would have ads + options for purchases (none can survive without it) and Apple now earns both on downloads and IAPs. Many games cross the 1M threshold once they are popular enough. Gaming apps have low retention, and a power curve in paying users.
Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome.
They can either stick with the 15%/30% commission without install fees. Let’s assume it has a revenue of >$1m, so that would be 30%.
Or they can opt into the new EU offering.
Then they’re immediately subject to a €0.50/unique install in 12 months per install in the EU over they reach a 1M installs in the EU.
The baseline is just that, that install fee. Which Apple calls the Core Technology Fee (CTF), in other words a fee for using Apple’s IP in your app.
If they also choose to distribute via the App Store then they’ll pay a commission of 17% and if they also choose to use IAP then they pay an additional 3% in processing fees.
Ironically, the CTF pushes bigger devs to use alternative stores, assuming they will offer a lower commission rate than 17%.
But it’s definitely possible to only pay the CTF if so desired.
It makes sense for apps which have a high ARPU. In gaming and related sectors, the number is notoriously low, even for large developers. The flow is new user installs app -> fraction keeps the app -> even smaller fraction pays. Typically even for a 10% paying users for an app like fortnite. Apple earns more with new terms compared to older terms.
I agree devs dont have to go for new terms and could stay with existing terms. The whole convoluted way of introducing this is meant to have that effect.
> Only if the app makes a series of decisions that lead to that outcome.
Isn't that convenient, a series of (dis)incentives which ensure the house always wins, not just on average, but 100% of the time. Something that a certain piece of anti-trust regulation is intended to change?
As someone trying to contribute to an open source iOS app, an app store that doesn't require me to pay money to use the NFC entitlement, muck about changing bundle IDs to be able to build an open source app and run it on my own device, or build an app that I can use for longer than 7 days without publishing to an app store, I take issue with your framing of other app stores. The original app store is already shitty, this legislation will make it not worse, but it will not be the solution to my personal woes with the shitty app store.
Apple has successfully delayed an equivalent to F-Droid for iOS users for another year.
Plenty of useful apps like the Orca card reader (see your transit card balance by just tapping your card, no internet required), fun games like Antimine, and such where the devs will only target barrier free platforms as it's a passion project are missing in action on iOS.
Not with the Core Technology Fee, nor with the Apple app review process standing in the way. These are severe restrictions that prevent something like FDroid from being operated on iOS.
> Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway
I'm not sure why I have to mention this, but you could be paying for something and get screwed over at the same time. The issue isn't that Google/Microsoft/etc NEED to make money this way, but that this is legal to do.
Also, Windows isn't exactly cheap and I personally couldn't fathom paying more than 100 bucks for an OS and still get treated like crap. I'm sure Android at best only makes 10 bucks from their users with their current model throughout the device's entire lifetime.
>I'm sure Android at best only makes 10 bucks from their users with their current model throughout the device's entire lifetime.
I'm pretty sure Google pays Apple more than $10 per year per iPhone user to be the default search on iPhones and Mac. They were paying 18 billion back in 2021. I don't think Apple's marketshare is over 1.8 billion active users yet. Do you think Apple users are just that much more valuable to have searching?
> The nonprofit organisation thing seems very significant. That makes it fairly easy [...]
I give Apple credit for making this clear rule: Having fewer than 1 million users on iOS in the EU means no fee, and you don't need to worry about status at all.
But if you have more installs, I don't think you'll get an easy to get a pass by just by sending Apple a note like "I'm just developing my app for fun" or "My app is open source". Maybe that works, but I wouldn't assume it without testing.
If your app has 1 million+ users, it's not at all convincing to say you made it just for fun, even if that's the truth. And we all know some open source apps are written with intent to make a profit, or given away free to promote related commercial activities or reputation, so saying it's open source isn't convincing either.
Anecdote: I ran a non-profit org, a hackerspace. Not only was it truly a non-profit organisation, it was legally constituted as such. The members had no legal rights to take any of its funds and resources out, those resources came from members and could only be used for the organisations's stated purpose, and because of this structure no tax was due when its funds grew, as they were primarily from member fees and donations. However, it was not a registered charity. It could have been but we decided the administrative overheads were too high.
Unfortunately, we were unable to convince Paypal we were a non-profit despite providing all the organisational documents Paypal requested to prove it (about 10 documents IIRC). This meant we weren't able to use Paypal for significant quantities of funding, i.e. to take membership payments. We could do a tiny amount for a couple of people, but it was capped at a very low limit.
If it's impossible to convince Paypal that a formally constituted non-profit qualifies as such, I wouldn't assume it's easy to convince Apple with casual claims, for an app with 1M+ users.
Do you need to be an "official" nonprofit, or is it sufficient just to have an app which generates no revenue? If the former, how difficult/expensive is that in the EU?
Yeah, the non-profit organization requirement is insurance for Apple that you aren't making money off your app some other way. Yeah, it's inconvenient for people who legitimately want to give stuff away for fun, but it isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
>We don’t pay for OS explicitly anymore. But look at Windows and Android… you end up paying somehow in the end anyway.
MS, you pay one time for the OS. Android you technically don't need to pay at all if you go AOSP. Both still require hardware to support the OS, though.
>And no. Paying for the phone is not a viable way to pay for the OS. That incentives the phone maker to ditch OS updates for old phones.
They do that anyway. mobile support is much lower than desktop which tends to guarantee a decade or so. And it's not like IOS is licensing out to other OEMs anyway.
In Windows you pay every time you open start menu and get blasted with tabloid news, ads and paid article placements. Or you pay in your time (again and again) turning it off each H2 update.
People say this but I just turned off a lot of that at the beginning. I generally do clean installs so I never worry about bloatware and I use Everything (void tools) to search because yes, Windows search just sucks somewhere around the middle of Windows 10.
I don't doubt the ads are there but I avoid them easily enough. Fortunately I get the option to get around that stuff, unlike Apple's environments.
That's cool and all, but I either can wait for that to happen or not happen (which is not a certainty), or I can just use macOS (or a flavor of Linux).
Sure, the EU will fix things like they've managed to do in the past with other internet-related stuff (e.g., cookie notices). And I will definitely re-evaluate this take once things change in terms of ads for Windows. But until that happens, I don't see "the EU will fix that" as a valid point in favor of Windows.
> It seems like with Apple, you're just paying for a lot of nothing.
These days Microsoft screws their users hard in terms of stealing every scrap of personal data they can from people's devices and shoving ads and unwanted software down their throats. An Apple computer might be highly overpriced, under-powered, and restrictive, but Apple isn't the privacy nightmare that Microsoft is and while Macs aren't perfect when it comes to privacy protections I can't fault people for seeing value in their privacy and being willing to pay for it.
That said, most apple users are overpaying for a status symbol and/or an identity rather than strictly for the privacy benefits and for tech savvy users with privacy concerns a PC with linux is the way to go since it's even better at protecting their data and doesn't come with Apple's restrictions on what you can/can't do with your own computer.
> most apple users are overpaying for a status symbol and/or an identity
I have never understood this viewpoint. The world isn't rich enough, or Apple devices exclusive enough, for identity to weight so heavily in Apple's favor.
I think convenience silently overshadows cost for many daily use products. People with modest incomes pay enormous annual sums for convenient daily coffee.
For many, relative reliability and lack of cruft make Apple products more convenient. For others, the inconvenience of Apple's "garden walls" drive them away.
> I have never understood this viewpoint. The world isn't rich enough, or Apple devices exclusive enough, for identity to weight so heavily in Apple's favor.
Apple has been a status symbol for ages but the iphone made it undeniable. If you've been unaware of that just check out articles such as these:
As for identity, you may have never met an "apple" person, but it's absolutely an identity for many. It's a subculture (https://www.wired.com/2002/12/mac-loyalists-dont-tread-on-us...). People have called apple users "cult-like" and their devotion to the Apple brand a religion (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3712458). I have met people who were convinced that they couldn't be a "real" artist without owning Apple products (in one case the person was talking about ipods specifically, not computers or cell phones). The influence of marketing on Apple users can be extremely powerful.
As for expense, even in the US the majority of the population (60%) lives paycheck to paycheck and their standard of living is in decline. The high price of the iphone drove up the cost of other brands so the price gap is smaller at the highest end, but most households can't easily afford to get everyone a $1,000+ phone and android devices offer a wide range of prices and features for families who can't afford the top of the line. Even those that can will probably still get more for their money with a flagship android device. Apple users also have to pay much more for software (https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/) and that's not even counting the 30% extra apple charges for their cut of in-app purchases that's been talked about so much lately. Iphone users spend and have more money in general for a reason (https://www.marketingdive.com/news/survey-iphone-owners-spen...) and convenience isn't it.
That said, I agree that the perception of Apple being easier to use does drive sales and for people already used to Apple's weirdness there would certainly be a learning curve in switching away from the platform which encourages people to stay.
You are ascribing broad motives and discounting alternatives.
I am sure their was some iPhone status effects, especially in iPhone's early days. But status effects follow other effects and die quickly if a product doesn't deliver.
--
I get fans.
I also get the anti-fan simplification syndrome of people who don't understand why Apple products have often appealed to others. Especially when those others are passionate at all.
Googling up articles that obscess of finding non-practical reasons for Apple enthusiasm isn't a good argument.
Apple has typically (for decades, with relatively few fails) had a cleaner level of design and polish vs. Microsoft and other alternatives.
That can be very hard to give up for those that appreciate it.
(Similarly for other consistently distinctively constructed product lines, emphasizing some other area of benefit, of course.)
--
Replies to every one of your links:
> "New research shows that owning an iPhone is the most common sign of wealth"
The article talks about a statistical link with wealth. Not psychology. I don't find it surprising that the wealthy are less price conscious.
> "Why the iPhone Is the Perfect Status Symbol"
The Huffington piece is a complete puff peice. ("A friend got an iPhone because she could not call Uber cabs on her Blackberry. [...] If there is any prospect of drinks on the horizon, she leaves her iPhone safely at home" [..] "There's irony somewhere in this but until Apple comes up with a product called iRony, and livestreams its launch we won't get it.")
Re the "iPhone Effect":
> Apple has always positioned themselves as an aspirational brand. The emphasis on unmatched quality levels, a clean user experience and a distinct and consistent design is at the core of what makes it the most valuable company in the world. [Emphasis mine.]
That is a lot of practical daily non-status value for less price conscious people to buy.
> As for identity, you may have never met an "apple" person, but it's absolutely an identity for many.
I get there are fans. But Apple fans for the most part have had good practical reasons. One big reason wasnt Apple so much as the cruft and shovelware (and now in OS advertising) of other vendors that for some of us gets achingly frustrating. (I have generally had Macs and Windows machines for decades. Pro's and con's for each, but good lord, Windows is still a bag of inconsistency, disorganized plethora's of niggling settings, and trashy interface choices in comparison. Even though I appreciate many reasons others preferred Windows.)
> It's a subculture
Again, Apple products are distinctive in a way that impacts people at a practical level. And that article is from 2002.
> People have called apple users "cult-like" [...]
People often have trouble understanding other people's choices. Article from 2001!
--
TLDR; Just because something can confer status, doesn't make status the reason people buy it. Especially 16 years after a high utility daily use product has been introduced and alternatives abound.
Takeaway: Let other's explain their own motives. Don't project narratives as if they are facts - regardless of how much they are repeated or satisfy you.
One serious research paper showing 60% of 10,000 iPhone owners across diverse demographics listing "status" as in their top 2 purchasing factors would realistically make the argument you are trying to make. Not the articles you listed.
The kinds of articles you thought worth quoting say more about you than Apple customers.
--
Devil's advocate: Apple has not always delivered, other vendors have other benefits, and Apple's legacy of user interface design is seriously marred by "flat design" in my experience. (Design should make usage simpler, not reduce pixels, color, texture, visibility of options or status, or other affordances. Don't get me started on Ives need to eliminate ports people actually used, or flatten keyboards into unreliability.)
I wonder if Mozilla will even be considered a nonprofit, given that they have a for-profit subsidiary, and they're not the only nonprofit with that structure.
The good thing about open source apps is that they could really be distributed by any non profit that match whatever requirements non profits need to match to benefit from free distribution ^^
That’s quite absurd, no? "You can pick which terms you want, the ones where we follow the law, or the ones where we don’t. If you pick the ones where we don’t, it’s cheaper for you."
The law calls for this choice, the law doesn’t prohibit Apple from offering their preferred option.
That said, if you have a an article of the DMA that says otherwise, I’m all ears.
It’s a bit hard for me to prove no such thing exists, other than to provide you with the full text of the DMA of course.
It does seem like malicious and petty compliance on Apples part. But that’s also the expected behavior of a corporation— so the EU just needs to keep up the rule making and clarification.
This approach is a gotcha: If you want to distribute Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome for free, this isn't possible under the old policy, and the new policy would mean 'open source web browsers cost half a euro per update'. It's nonsense.
No -- as far as I can tell, alternative browser engines are going to be allowed in the old terms within the EU. Unless you can point to something that says the opposite?
Apple points out that the new terms are required for third-party app stores and third-party payments. Not for browser engines.
I'm expecting both Google and Mozilla to make their browsers, with their engine, available in Apple's regular store in the EU.
(And even in the new agreement, it's not half a euro per update. It's per year that contains an install or update. If you update 12 times a year, you're not paying 12 times. You're paying once.)
This link alone is worth a whole separate HN discussion. Thank you to share.
The requirements list is very interesting.
For example:
> Meet the following functional requirements to ensure your app is using a web browser engine that provides a baseline of web functionality: Pass a minimum percentage of tests available from industry standard test suites: 90% from Web Platform Tests and 80% from Test262
And:
> Program security requirements: You must do the following: Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the Alternative Web Browser Engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
Is WebKit written in C++? That language certainly isn't "memory-safe" (I am not dumping on C++ here!). I assume that Apple uses fuzz testing and static analysis to find memory safety issues. So... does WebKit pass this rule? Hmm... And, are there any browsers written in memory-safe languages? I assume they would be too slow (Java, C#, etc.) I'm not sure if Rust is considered memory safe here. (Can you have null pointer exceptions in Rust -- dereference a null pointer?)
My understanding is that WebKit (Safari) and Blink (Chrome) both have extremely complex smart pointer types and GCs and allocators such that they count as memory-safe, at least in comparison to regular C++. I don't know how much this applies to Firefox but I would assume they have similarly elaborate infrastructure.
Large portions of each browser are also written in JS ("self-hosted") at this point, and Firefox now contains large components either written in Rust or sandboxed (via wasm) C.
This rule does seem like an easy way to reject literally every browser other than Servo, though.
That's a great link, and indeed zero mention of requiring the new terms. So this seems to very much confirm it -- new browsers can be distributed 100% for free.
But not many people will see it here buried down deep in this thread. I suggest you submit it as a new link to HN though. Very interesting stuff!
But the old policy allows distribution of these apps for
free and developers have the option of sticking with the old
policy — so I don’t see the problem.
Apples argument that they're complying is about as brilliant as "I don't need a liquor license because I'm not selling beer I'm renting glassess for the time it takes to drink a beer". The only way to get into 3rd party stores is to pay (or be at risk of having to pay) Apple which is not the case if you only distribute through the Apple store, this clearly disadvantages 3rd party stores in comparrison to their own store.
This sounds as a “want my cake and eat it too” argument.
Apple’s default construction for getting payments for the usage of their IP is via commission on revenue.
This is by definition a differential pricing strategy because not everyone has to pay for the usage of Apple’s IP.
Many didn’t like the commission structure and made all sorts of arguments against it.
It would just be for payment processing, it would just be for distribution, etc.
Apple has always maintained it was primarily for the use of their IP, all the rest is thrown in as a bonus. They have structured it as such in the developer agreement and US courts have wholesale accepted it as such.
One alternative that has been floated around a lot by people that accept that Apple wants payment for their IP but didn’t like the commission structure regardless was to split off the fee for IP into its own thing.
Now they do that very thing in the form of the CTF (at a more competitive rate than Epic does for Unreal mind you).
In addition there’s a separate commission for App Store services and a separate commission for payment processing.
Now the new complaint is that this payment for their IP for first installs on EU iPhones per 12 months in excess of 1M installs in the EU isn’t good either.
So what is the desired outcome? Use Apple’s IP for free?
I don’t see how this disadvantages third party stores. Does it disadvantage Steam when Epic comes knocking on my door for their share of the pie?
Epic charges me 5% of all my revenue above a million, Apple charges me €0.50 of all my EU installs on iOS above 1M installs in the EU.
Apple’s fee is directly tied to my usage of their IP, I pay them €0.50 in 12 monthly installments for each installation that goes over 1M, but they don’t touch anything else I make off of that install.
Epic wants 5% over every dollar I make over $1M worldwide.
Don’t get me wrong, personally I was content with my 30% and the 15% is a steal for what I get out of it.
But if commission of revenue is the big bad, then the only logical thing for licensing IP is an upfront cost for usage whether you earn money with it or not.
This is how it was with consoles. Thousands upfront for the right to publish and using the IP + thousands for every build to be certified + commission over revenue.
Indies later on got a reduced rate in the hundreds, until you got big.
> So what is the desired outcome? Use Apple’s IP for free?
The desired outcome is for third-party apps and app stores to be able to run on iOS devices for free. Traditionally, building software for consumer operating systems, including Mac OS hasn't been considered using the OS vendor's IP such that it would require permission or payment.
Dev tools were often paid, true, but not necessarily to the OS vendor.
What Apple has done here is bring the console gaming model to general-purpose computing devices. I believe the EU wishes to roll that back and will probably not allow Apple's announced fees and restrictions.
And Apple already charges for those through their $100 annual developer program fee. They can't just make up arguments about how that's not really for developer tools because it happens to suit their agenda.
Quote from their own website:
> By enrolling in the Apple Developer Program, individuals and organizations receive everything they need to develop apps for distribution.
Apple won't be the one distributing them, alternative app stores are, that's the point.
Besides, Apple never claimed their new fee was for distribution, but for "core platform services", i.e. the SDK and tools, which they're already charging for.
> The Core Technology Fee (CTF) is an element of the new business terms in the European Union (EU) that reflects the value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users around the world.
"Core platform services" is the term used by the EU.
Someone always pays for the cost to develop and maintain the OS. In the Windows model it's the user. In the iOS model it's the app developer. I don't find the argument that either is superior particularly compelling, and certainly don't see a reason for legislators to be involved in dictating which model a particular company should use.
OSs are expensive things to build and maintain, and I don't take for granted the fact that my iPhone XS Max (2018) is running the latest version if iOS. If Apple's App Store pricing structure makes that possible, then it's certainly working for me.
They pay for updates indefinitely? That's not very sustainable for the business is it? To justify continued investment in backwards compatibility and security patches, a business needs an ongoing source of revenue.
This is just wrong. Historically application platforms charged for developer tools and support. You had to buy new tools regularly to access new OS features and you had to pay for documentation or human support. The commission model just flipped the fee structure, which is arguably better for everyone because the upfront costs were a barrier to entry and disincentivized free apps.
Appeal to tradition isn’t a beneficial argument, which is why it’s considered a fallacy.
It crumbles under the most benign forms of scrutiny.
The comment below already pointed out that vendors charged for all kinds of stuff. Your reply seems to suggest that, for some reason, you’re ok with that, but not if the OS vendor does it.
There’s also the argument that investment in frameworks for iOS is significantly higher than, say, the investment Microsoft made into frameworks for Windows back in the day.
Then there’s the general criticism of an appeal to tradition that there were many traditions that we currently aren’t ok with, and an appeal to tradition suggests that they are inherently good just by virtue of once having been a tradition.
I remember a tradition not too long ago where console manufacturers would charge thousands just for access to the platform and the IP (sometimes rolled into the price of a dev kit), plus thousands more for each build that needed certification plus a commission on sales.
It was so cumbersome for some developers that they did not bother updating their game[0].
Even later on, with lower fees, there’s still a lot of cost to get games published[1].
Now, you might say that consoles are nothing like iPhones, and I will respond by saying that iPhones are nothing like Macs.
And on and on we might go.
What matters is what is legal. Apple is in the clear to charge for usage of their IP, even when they use differential pricing and even when other companies are willing to give away their work for free because they see other avenues of revenue by doing so.
Further down, you state:
> I believe the EU wishes to roll that back and will probably not allow Apple's announced fees and restrictions.
Can I ask what fuels that belief? Or perhaps more importantly, what fuels the belief that they are at all in the position to do something about it?
I see a lot of “Wait till your dad comes home” style comments every time Apple is brought up as if there’s some collective amnesia that “dad” also has to stick to the law and doesn’t have the final say in this universe.
The European Parliament and Council of the European Union are the legislative bodies of the EU, and as such, they can create laws.
But like any legislative body, they are limited and need to move within the bounds of the laws.
The European Commission, on the other hand, functions as the executive body of the EU and is to enforce the law. They, too, are limited by the bounds of the law.
Neither the DMA nor its enforcement have been tested in court yet. All of that will start once the EC tries to enforce something, and the EC has, at best, a mixed track record before the court.
Apple made a smart move today because, contrary to what many here think, they went above and beyond the DMA requirements (e.g., it has no price regulation, so all the discounts in fees are freebies), and as such, took the wind out of the EC’s legal argument sails for many of the potential arguments.
The biggest hurdle that one needs to overcome is IP and property rights. Something neither the EU nor the US wants to tackle because it would have significant effects across all commerce.
The idea that you can just take a company’s IP and essentially make it public domain will never fly.
At best, in sporadic instances, can you get a court to agree that a company should be forced to charge “reasonable” fees, but with Apple’s fee structure for the EU being less than that of the rest of the markets and and option to evade all but one fee, it’s nearly impossible to convince a court that the CTF is somehow out of line.
Ironically, as I write this, I just realized that an upfront fee for IP usage that is entirely decoupled from revenue is actually very traditional when it comes to fees like this.
The general timeline from investigating violations to ECJ is about ten years, so this will take a while.
> Appeal to tradition isn’t a beneficial argument, which is why it’s considered a fallacy.
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy in logic, but laws are not made using pure logic. Laws are made when some group with sufficient political power wants them to be made, and such groups are often driven by tradition, what they perceive to be tradition.
> Or perhaps more importantly, what fuels the belief that they are at all in the position to do something about it?
The European Union is a government; it makes and enforces laws. In this case, it has made a law called the Digital Markets Act which addresses certain types of gatekeeping behavior by large tech companies including Apple. Some readings of this law I've seen forbid Apple from charging fees for distributing apps outside its store and from using any legal workarounds to circumvent that prohibition. It remains to be seen how EU regulators and courts will interpret it.
Your comment makes several references to "IP", but isn't clear about what IP is involved. Is it necessary to use inventions patented by Apple to write an app that runs on an iPhone? Is it necessary to know Apple's trade secrets (aside from things like signing keys that exist for the sole purpose of gatekeeping)? Does it require making copies of things Apple holds copyright to?
> Laws are made when some group with sufficient political power wants them to be made, and such groups are often driven by tradition, what they perceive to be tradition.
This can certainly be a motivator.
In Europe, and the EU in particular, many individual member states as well as the EU itself have the tradition of including an explanatory memorandum when passing new laws.
The function of this is to explain the mindset of the legislators and the motivation behind a law. It is sometimes used by courts to gain clarity on laws that might be a bit more ambiguous in their intent.
Below is a link to the explanatory memorandum of the DMA.
I wasn’t able to find a reference to traditions on regarding licensing fees, or monetization of IP.
But you’re welcome to point me in the right direction.
> Some readings of this law I've seen forbid Apple from charging fees for distributing apps outside its store and from using any legal workarounds to circumvent that prohibition. It remains to be seen how EU regulators and courts will interpret it.
Could you point me to these readings, or better yet the specific articles that these readings are based on?
To the best of my knowledge the DMA has little in the way of price regulation. So this is news to me.
> Your comment makes several references to "IP", but isn't clear about what IP is involved.
The IP in question would be code written by Apple provided in the form of frameworks, SDKs, APIs and the like. There’s also the use of software like Xcode, but for the sake of simplicity let’s stick with code written by Apple.
Creating an app by definition makes use of this IP. IP I’m sure will have cost a considerable amount to develop by Apple, so I can see why they’re eager to get payment for it or, alternatively, strategically decide who can use it for free.
Trade secrets aren’t really involved in this and neither is copying, at least not in most cases.
> The IP in question would be code written by Apple provided in the form of frameworks, SDKs, APIs and the like. There’s also the use of software like Xcode, but for the sake of simplicity let’s stick with code written by Apple.
Code generally falls under copyright. Copyright means that making copies requires permission from the owner. Installing and using XCode, for example involves making a copy of XCode, and Apple charges a subscription fee for the privilege. Distributing an iPhone app that statically links Apple libraries is also making copies of Apple's copyrighted code, which requires permission. Dynamic linking to libraries present in the OS, however does not involve distributing copies of them and does not require permission.
Distributing an iPhone app built with open source tools and libraries would not involve copying Apple's code. There aren't many iPhone apps built this way right now as far as I know because App Store rules require the use of Apple's tools, but the DMA requires that apps can be installed from other sources and do not need to comply with those rules.
The other options for IP are trade secrets, trademarks, and patents. Only patents seem likely to support a fee for distributing any app that can run on a certain device, but I don't think Apple has a patent with that effect.
> Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assembler? Or am I forced to use Apple IP?
Not sure what you mean by forced to use Apple IP. You are running on their ARM chip under their kernel, using their libraries to read touch events and display to the screen.
IP is incredibly broad; you can't really avoid using say all copyrighted libraries.
If you are speaking toward is there a path to write applications which will work on iOS devices without signing agreements, paying royalties or having legal action taken against you, there's the Safari browser and it sounds like there will be many more web browsers soon.
> I can publish on windows without using Microsoft IP, I can publish on android without using google IP, right?
I don't see how you could publish a legitimate app for Windows without using e.g. ReadFile.
I don't know how you would publish an Android app without using its proprietary manifest file; you probably come closest there to a minimal working application due to instead using lots of Oracle IP.
iOS would not run code which is not built and signed by their tools.
Unless EU mandates the minimal interoperability requirements. You do not pay if your app is a Web app, so maybe better interop with web apps mandated would be more interesting (like allowing to add icons for these apps).
Using APIs is fair use. If you can avoid using Apple code to do so, or only minimal ones, like headers, then I think you would be in the clear. See Google vs Oracle. IANAL of course and personally I wouldn't pursue this.
In the EU there's a "Computer Programs Directive" which grants us the right to go as far as to reverse engineer any licensed software for the purposes of interoperability.
Reverse engineering APIs is fair use, not simply using APIs. Eg when Google implemented their own implementation of Java APIs, that was deemed fair use. Google only copied the interface. The courts ruled you can build a competing product that copies an interface for compatibility, just like Compaq did with IBM’s BIOS. Google absolutely would have been on the hook had they used Oracle’s implementation of the APIs.
> If you want a store in a mall, you have to pay higher leases and probably additional fees than you would if you operated out of your garage.
An iPhone is not a mall. An iPhone is a device owned by the end user. If the end user wants to use an app by some third party developer, they should be able to.
We don't let car dealers from prevent customers from installing aftermarket addons.
If any global entity owned such a large percentage of malls that suppliers had little choice but to appear there in order to be competitive, and charged for mall use via a general tax on original and follow up economic activity (instead of in proportion to mall resources used), requiring products be registered with them, and copies of direct and follow up sales records, many people might protest that too.
I think a large part of the disagreement here is the idea that all digital things should be free compared to how the physical world has been forever.
To sell to a hardware store, for example, you need to offer the retailer 40% as a minimum. Then you need to pay, often compulsorily, trading terms, ranging fees, advertising levies and other off invoice things.
They have high costs to cover, but they also force shelf prices down as much as they can.
In my opinion, Supermarkets and hardware stores mis-use their market power way more than Apple appears to be doing
I take your point. Commercial real estate companies can abuse their market position too!
But Apple's (duopoly level) gatekeeper status on global/mobile applications, services, information and transactions is allowing them to hold back an enormous amount of latent innovation.
Shelf space is important and necessary for many businesses, but that isn't where tomorrow's world is being crafted.
Oh, I’m not a blind supporter of Apple. They absolutely could be much less arrogant and handle this and many other things much better.
However, the entitlement that is pervasive here that whatever Apple does is bad and it’s ok to expect them to give their work and infrastructure away for free is just crazy.
If we’re arguing about the value that developers get for what they pay, or if Apple is stifling innovation, or even if Apple is being maliciously compliant, then that’s a different conversation. I’m much more sympathetic to that.
But this is about people demanding Apple give their IP away from free so that they can make money from that expensive to make and operate infrastructure is ridiculous
I don't think anyone believes Apple shouldn't be able to set normal supply and demand optimized product and service fees.
But Apple owns one of only two global mobile app, service and info platforms, and so has tremendous power to limit and veto other businesses opportunities. Few businesses that need to operate in those ecosystems can be viable only operating in one of them.
And Apple is using that tremendous leverage to do two things normal businesses can't do.
Both of which damage the larger economy.
1) It is gatekeeping fundamental technological and business innovation. Apple limits the types of technology and business models that it will allow on its platforms, in favor of its own versions, or in favor of simply not enabling innovation it finds competitively threatening.
It is very difficult for new innovation on the margins to succeed starting out unable to participate in half the marketplace.
2. It has enough veto power over businesses, that it is able to tax other businesses' success, instead of charging for the value of its products and services to them. I.e. Apple charges a percentage of other businesses product and service revenue - instead of flat charges for its security checks, app listings, etc. Apple charges a percentage of follow up revenue, even if the transaction happens elsewhere. Apple charges a percentage on revenue of transactions that don't even require Apple's assistance or participation but were initially enabled by being on Apple's platform. It even charges a percentage of revenue for fourth parties it has no relationship with, such as for transactions by participants on third party markets, like digital art creators!
No normal business could extend taxes on other's productivity like that, to multiple levels of extraction, independent of productive value provided. They would be rapidly replaced by a competitor happy to make profits set by supply and demand, instead of taxes imposed by the ability to deny (or seriously hamper) entry to a strategic global market.
> But Apple owns one of only two global mobile app, service and info platforms, and so has tremendous power to limit and veto other businesses opportunities. Few businesses that need to operate in those ecosystems can be viable only operating in one of them.
However, it is important (from a capitialism angle at least) to realize Apple has never falsely represented things. They have not done a bait and switch. They launched with their 30% commission rate on agency-model pricing almost 15 years ago (for apps, which was the same commission rate for music before that), and every change in licensing terms has been either enabling new transactions that were otherwise restricted, or by offering lower rates - such as for certain types of financial transactions, or certain business sizes.
They have also tended to do this with public policy changes rather than unilateral arrangements, although there are some partner programs around tvOS which are pretty tailor-built such that few companies would be able to take advantage of them.
And it is worth noting that they launched first as a platform for web based apps, and when you filter web technologies to actual standards (and not Google inventions) they tend to fight between first and second place with Chrome on actual interoperability.
Companies recognize the marketing value of having a native app within the App Store vs just a normal website. Apple obviously does as well.
> Apple charges a percentage of follow up revenue, even if the transaction happens elsewhere.
Note this is only true via 'new terms' to allow for steering toward alternative payment systems. Apple has always allowed you to operate your own out-of-store payment system (e.g. signing up for a Netflix account on the Netflix site, or purchasing kindle books on kindle.com) without paying them any commission.
However for most consumer apps (e.g. non. 'reader' apps like music, video, books and news) you had to provide a way to purchase in-app using Apple's system.
Many of these reader apps have played with in-app subscriptions off-and-on, which would make an interesting case study as they have been the category actually capable of deciding whether or not in-app purchasing was worth offering. Other categories are mandated.
> However, it is important (from a capitalism angle at least) to realize Apple has never falsely represented things.
I also feel like Apple has generally attempted to be well behaved, even as their market power has grown exponentially from a couple decades ago.
They are not the devil. But they are have reached a level of market breadth and power, that behavior not problematic even a few years ago is now an impediment for the market as a whole.
They deserve kudos for their success.
If they don't contort and distract themselves from more productive advances, by prioritizing holding onto leverage that has become too heavy handed for those they serve (and partner with), they are likely to become an even better company.
Microsoft has done fantastically well since giving up Ballmer's scorched Earth, Windows only philosophy. Ironically, if they had given up that control obsession sooner, focusing more on improving Windows shortcomings, they might have skipped the stall associated with that era and be even more dominant now.
Businesses should exist in malls to make a profit not to "be competitive". If it isn't profitable or the return on investment isn't worth it then they should not exist at that mall. It's the mall's fault if they charge too much and start to lose businesses to other malls and in turn lose visitors who would rather visit other malls.
I agree with that. At the individual business decision level.
But relatively fair competition is still a necessary component at the scale of an economy. If we are to retain any approximation of equality, equity and not hamper innovation.
If someone somehow owns the only viable commercial water supply for a city block, they can demand whatever they can get from any business on that block that needs water. And each business should make good decisions for itself in that context.
But if someone owns all the commercial water supply for a city, people are going to take political action to alter the economic equation if it starts leveraging that capability to the general cities detriment.
Alternatively someone could start up their own commercial water supply business if other businesses feel their only option is unfair. By acting poorly towards businesses the original company would have messed up their long term market share for a short term profit.
As a result of the way water rights work in most areas, this is likely not true. You aren't allowed to use the water even if it runs right through your property if you don't have water rights.
You could maybe import water through trucks or trains or something from somewhere else, but the costs for that would be brutal. Then the incumbent can bankrupt you instantly by undercutting your price, and then hike it back up as soon as you're gone. The Robber Barons in the 19th century used this very tactic frequently in anti-trust situations to hamper competition
That would make this a poor analogy as anyone can create their own hardware + software ecosystem.
>Then the incumbent can bankrupt you instantly by undercutting your price
This could be mitigated by longer term contracts so you are guarenteed a certain amount of payment to make it worth your time before the other company lowered their prices to start competing.
Obtaining water rights in some other locale, and piping it into a town some way, is probably easier than competing against a trillion dollar entrenched tech ecosystem.
But the water system, or general utility problem, is interesting for many reasons.
Dual sets of infrastructure double the supply costs for a critical input like water, without actually increasing the supply that nature provides.
The solution to keep costs and prices down is then generally to give (or accept) a water supply monopoly, but with price regulation. That is the common solution to avoid price gouging in that monopoly situation.
> Can I publish an application that does not use Apple IP, let’s say something written in ARM assembler?
iOS apps can be written in assembly. I’ve done so myself out of curiosity, and it seems others have done so as well[0].
Of course, I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s excruciating.
That said, isn’t this just a bad-faith argument wrapped in an attempted gotcha? Where your premise is that if you don’t have a choice, then you shouldn’t be charged?
If Apple would say:
“Hey, you can use Swift for free because it’s open source, and you’re welcome to benefit from our contributions to it, and while you’re at it, you’re allowed to use all the basic low-level frameworks that communicate with the OS for free as well. But anything more than that, and we want you to pay us for it.”
Would you then be fully on board with them charging for using the remaining IP they own?
Are IP and ownership rights fluid based on your own moral framework, depending on if one has a choice or not?
Should I just blow past the toll booth of the only bridge here that allows me access to the rest of the country?
How about the only ISP that provides service here? Should they just allow me to use their infrastructure so I can write you this comment?
The other day I saw a nice TV at the local store. It’s pretty much the only place I can get this TV. Do I have your blessing to take it because I don’t have much of a choice?
I make apps for a living, I’m literally the only place on earth where you can get my app. My app saves users a lot of money. Should people just pirate my app and force me on a diet of hardtack?
Where does this fluidity start and where does it end?
I thought, for better or worse (and we can spend hours debating this part alone), we decided that when someone owns something, and especially when they create something, they get to decide who, if anyone, gets to use it and at what’s price if any.
The point is that Apple can't say "this fee is required to distribute out precious IP, and this is a fair price for our IP, look how happy people are to use it", while also saying "oh, and if you don't use our IP, you aren't allowed to publish an app at all". And no, this doesn't entitle others to steal the IP in question. The problem is the second part, not the first.
Writing your app in assembler still means you're using "Apple's IP". You cannot make an iOS app that does not check in with the system and draws to the screen and responds to touch events without using platform APIs.
Maybe so, but I have no doubt Apple lawyers could make a plausible argument — in good faith, even — that you might need a license to link against required iOS libraries.
Streaming services ARE paying TV manufactures for using their IP. Thats why all the TVs are becoming smart TVs - because someone signing up for Max (or Apple TV+) nets them a fairly profitable commission when you see how slim margins are for the bulk of television sales.
This is why smart TVs are becoming increasingly more annoying, because additional revenue streams are so highly desired. Display more in-interface ads, offer first party 'streaming' for the opportunity to display more ads, put movie purchases/rentals ever more prominently in your UI, always start in your menus rather than the last selected HDMI input, take metrics on what people are watching by default - I am surprised we don't have an Uber Eats button on the remote yet.
Interestingly, a TV manufacturer can't do anything to require a streaming service to provide _their_ IP. Netflix seems to have a policy of not allowing their app to run on projectors, keeping them out of the allow-list for downloads and for execution of the android app. Some projector manufacturers will ship a separate Chromecast dongle or the like so that they can say they support Netflix on the box.
By my logic, TV manufacturers can also charge TV app developers for the use of their IP if they so desire, yes.
I don’t see how that’s nonsense or hogwash. It’s a very basic concept since the dawn of men.
You want to use or own something I own or made, then I can ask you to pay for it.
In this instance it’s the frameworks and SDKs that were made and that others want to use.
In a similar fashion, they already extract payment in exchange for them featuring whatever app has decided to pay for that privilege.
Don’t see how that’s somehow morally better, nor do I see a legal hurdle.
In general, getting into a 3rd party store is not a good thing, and it doesn’t benefit end-users.
I only ever want to see 2 app stores on my phone, the AppStore, and an FDroid alternative full of free, open-source apps. Anything else is good to be disincentivized.
Do they have a provision that one will be able to JIT code in their blessed AppStore in EU now? If so, I've misread the announcement, as I didn't get that.
Doesn't seem like nonsense to me. Mozilla is a registered nonprofit so they're fine. Google could donate Chrome to a non-profit if they wish, or not and pay. Seems reasonable.
Depends if they consider Mozilla Corp (a for-profit corporation) or Mozilla Foundation (the no-profit owner of the Corp) the developer of the browser. All the engineers are employed by the corp.
They’ve introduced pricing that their lawyers think is compatible with the regulation (the regulations don’t ban egregious pricing). Frankly, I think Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection, let consumers decide for themselves if they want to risk it or not.
> Frankly, I think Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection, let consumers decide for themselves if they want to risk it or not.
Apple did not do this because consumers do not value malware and fraud protection nearly as much as Apple would like everyone to believe.
Maybe that's true, and consumers don't know what's best for them. However, we live in a free society, where consumers are supposed to be able to decide for themselves what they value, and spend their money accordingly.
Where we do impose regulations to ensure public safety, they are decided by a democratic process. And as imperfect as that process may be at times, it is better than letting a single for-profit corporation set the terms.
> Consumers are indeed able to decide for themselves
> they can buy any number of Android phones
I can imagine a world in which iPhone's and Android phones were drop in replacements for each other.
And I can imagine Apple selling many wonderful interoperable products into an open standards ecosystem, with a tiny fraction of its current market cap.
But we live in a world with a huge global corporation with a highly knit ecosystem, quietly investing billions of dollars retarding threatening innovation, continually raising switching costs, and the costs of interoperability with alternatives, growing a tax base of third party efforts having little to do with Apple's efforts (streaming media and games, third party stores, creator economy, ...), shifting inconveniences from users to third parties, etc.
There are worse forms of coercion, i.e. the systematic privacy violations and manipulative media of the surveillance economy (run in part by Google the major benefactor of Android, and which even Apple dips its toes into).
But the choice between iOS and Android ecosystems is anything but a simple easily informed choice, free of supplier leverage, conflicts of interest, with predictable long term implications in cost efficiency and future freedoms of choice for most users.
Arguably it is clearly the world that most consumers want or they wouldn't have voted for a government that enacted these policies.
I think it's a little silly to argue that purchasing decisions for a device are an endorsement of every single aspect of that device. There are features that are desirable on iOS that would be enough to influence a consumer to buy an iOS device that have nothing to do with whether or not the device supports sideloading.
But if we are arguing that purchasing decisions are an endorsement of every corporate decision about a device, then it seems silly to argue that voting decisions are not a similar endorsement of government policy. And of course, Apple is not legally obligated to serve the EU, they're one of richest companies on the entire planet so if anyone is equipped to be choosy about the markets they support, it's Apple. However, Apple has freely chosen to do business in the EU, and EU residents have freely chosen to vote for politicians that have imposed regulations on Apple's presence in the market.
Of course I don't actually think it's that simple. But ignoring the lock-in present in government policy and market participation is no less silly than ignoring the lock-in on in a device where moving away from the ecosystem can cause your credit card to stop working. A more reasonable take is that consumers make purchasing decisions for complicated reasons, some of them having nothing to do with lock-in (if they are even aware of lock-in or security or user freedom debates to begin with, which is usually not the case), and their preferences about these systems can change wildly depending on the circumstances and affordances and research that they do.
As an example, Facebook argued that users were clearly opting in to tracking on iOS by choosing to use the Facebook service instead of the many other available social networks they could sign up for. Thankfully, Apple didn't agree, and when users were offered a more clear choice about whether to share advertising IDs with Facebook, many of them said no. If we took a view that participation in an ecosystem was endorsement of the entire ecosystem, we'd be arguing that Apple adding privacy controls in front of Facebook was somehow circumventing the social-media market. But as it turns out many users did want privacy controls in front of Facebook, just not so much that they were willing to avoid Facebook entirely. When offered the best of both worlds, they were happy to use Facebook while sharing less information with the service.
You can switch vendors any time (e.g. to Samsung, LG, Google, or any other Android/Microsoft variants). That's not the same as governments - that feedback loop is way longer. Especially with something as sprawling as the European Commission.
Given the size of Facebook's userbase and its revenue growth over many years, most people don't care about the tracking that goes on there.
> You can switch vendors any time (e.g. to Samsung, LG, Google, or any other Android/Microsoft variants)
You'll have to dig yourself back out of the vendor lock-in in order to do so. If you have an Apple device and you use an Apple credit card, switching to Android means changing your credit card and changing your subscriptions. It means different compatibility rules between devices, it means different app availability. Sometimes it means giving up related services that are not available on other platforms (almost like the switching costs inherent in bundling services together is part of what this debate is about).
Of course, you can do all that. But you can also emigrate between countries in many cases. The EU and US will allow you to move someplace else if you want to. It'll be expensive, it might be prohibitively expensive, there might be large switching costs and things you have to give up -- but that's just another system of vendor lock-in. The United States will not (generally) say that it's illegal for you to move to France.
And note that with Apple in particular, Apple has the resources to move out of countries if it wants to. Apple is not a single family struggling to make ends meet that can't afford legal advice on how to exit a market. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world. If Apple doesn't want to be part of the EU market, Apple has the freedom to walk away from that market -- and in fact, corporations have done this before, they have exited markets over policy. There are few companies in the world where participation in a market is more of a choice than it is with Apple.
To say that developers have a choice about which ecosystems they work with but that Apple doesn't have a choice about whether it does business in the EU... it's just wildly inconsistent. Oh, Apple would have to give up a lot of revenue, sure. But I wonder if developers making a decision about whether to support iOS have ever faced that conundrum? ;)
I'll concede that the scale is different, but there is no bright line here that makes vendor lock-in fundamentally different, you're just quibbling over where to draw a line on a continuum. And it's a lot simpler and more accurate to the real world to just say, "yes, governments can impose more switching cost but that doesn't mean that switching costs and the concept of coercion stop existing outside of governments." People like to pretend that the extreme power of governments and the extreme danger of government overreach means that they're fundamentally the only system of coercion and that means that markets are always pure expressions of free choice, and it's just obviously not true.
Governments are coercive and are often coercive on a level beyond the market. There is a reason why we care more about freedom of speech as applied to the government than as applied to businesses. Scale matters. But scale is not the same as a binary system. The fact that government has more tools at its disposal to coerce people does not mean that the market (or Apple) has none.
----
> Given the size of Facebook's userbase and its revenue growth over many years, most people don't care about the tracking that goes on there.
And yet, when offered the choice when booting up Facebook on iOS, many users chose to disable tracking. Why? I thought we knew their preference. How do we explain this difference in behavior if using Facebook is an expression of approval over how users are tracked? Are we supposed to believe that all of those users suffered concussions and then suddenly became not OK with the tracking anymore?
It's one thing to say that consumers are choosing to opt into a system, but here we have an example of consumers literally demonstrating two separate choices in opposite directions. So it just doesn't make sense to act like using Facebook means users like being tracked when we have extremely clear signals that those same users immediately opted out of being tracked as soon as they had the opportunity to do so.
The only way to explain that behavior is to say that their usage of Facebook did not provide a clear indicator on their preferences on privacy/tracking and that their decision to use Facebook was a complicated decision based on multiple factors and was not some kind of full endorsement of Facebook's business model.
I can only add, that votes for Putin are similarly not simple votes. Centralization and consolidation of power, or product categories, encompassing a myriad of implications, into one, two or three entities, completely derail the meaning of seemingly normal expressions of preference.
Sure, but that's not the case with Apple. There are a number of smartphone manufacturers (even 'Android' isn't one category - there are many variants) and there aren't many laws preventing new entries into the market that can be sustained by potentially happy customers.
It's not like governments (which also have a monopoly on legal violence, something no corporation has) or political parties at all.
> It's not like governments (which also have a monopoly on legal violence, something no corporation has) or political parties at all.
Governments sublease the right on legal violence out to corporations -- The government enforces copyright and legal rights for companies like Apple and allows Apple to dictate the terms of how users interact with phones that they purchased, and the government will commit legal violence if those terms are violated.
It's not so simple as to say that government is completely isolated from business. The government seizing 3rd-party repair parts at the border is on behalf of Apple. Apple definitely has agency over ways in which that monopoly on legal violence is wielded. During Apple's lawsuit with Epic, both parties were operating with the understanding that the government would enforce the outcome of that case using (if necessary) legal violence to do so.
These lines are much blurrier than you suppose; there is a reason why the expansion of the DMCA is often called in some circles "felony contempt of business model." You can't let Apple off the hook here when Apple is able to sic the government on people who break their DRM, run emulators, or otherwise bypass technological controls that have been added to Apple devices. Apple is a part of this. The government is not intervening on Apple's behalf without Apple's permission.
Consent is complicated, people often try to define bright lines between "this is a completely fair outcome that is the result of choice" and "this is a coerced outcome" -- and in reality, there aren't bright lines between those scenarios. The market has plenty of ways to coerce outcomes, some of them completely separate from the government (vendor lock-in does not require a monopoly on legitimate violence) and some of them based on leverage of government systems that allow corporations to compel or ban certain consumer behaviors.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Apple is the same as Putin; there's different kinds of "voting" in any government system. But I really like the way you phrase that: "consolidation of product categories" is a really good description of how Apple's ecosystem works, and it's clear (to me at least) that this consolidation is purposeful and deliberate; Apple wants iOS to be a composite product that is all-or-nothing. And you're completely right that both votes and purchases are often at best decisions about the entire composite ecosystem as a whole and not about the individual parts of those ecosystems.
The consequence is that once consumers are in a place where there are only a few choices about ecosystems that actually make sense to use, there's no longer pressure to change the parts that people don't like as long as the overall ecosystem still remains better than the alternatives. In the same way that single-issue voting allows parties to pass otherwise unpopular policies in other areas, products can excel in specific important areas that allow companies to ignore other flaws and criticisms in other areas. It's very easy for markets to hit local maximums where having a clear market winner in a particular category removes any incentive for the market to otherwise improve, because improving those areas would require at least temporarily moving away from the current best choice.
So, what other features do you wish to prevent and or remove from iOS/iPhones because you don't have a use for them even though they would not affect you one iota?
They do affect me - non-technical members of my family are on iPhones and I’m glad they can’t install malware by accident.
More generally, I don’t believe I nor anyone else should mandate anything about a private software company’s product roadmap (least of all spiteful bureaucrats obsessed with targeting American technology companies).
The precedent this sets is absurd. The market already provides a solution outside of arbitrary coercion: we all have the freedom to purchase other products.
> we live in a free society, where consumers are supposed to be able to decide for themselves what they value, and spend their money accordingly
…except if they value a device that enforces audited software only, because they find it safe and convenient. If they value that they’re wrong, because wanting that is unfair to some businesses who want to sell them things.
> it is better than letting a single for-profit corporation set the terms
This is sort of true, government regulation is better than a single corporation dictating terms. But it’s not that relevant, is it? There are two major corporations in the mobile OS business. Plus a bunch of open source projects and a few small businesses for the adventurous. And web standards making it reasonably possible to not depend on any one of them, if that’s a priority.
Are the big technology companies powerful? Yes. Should they be regulated? Yes. Like this? Probably not.
> …except if they value a device that enforces audited software only, because they find it safe and convenient.
What is the legitimate reason for tying this to hardware? If you only want to use audited software, then don't install software from outside the official app store. I agree that the iOS App Store is a great service, I just object to it being the only option.
Apple locks up the supply chains for the best screens, the best cameras, the most advanced chip fabrication processes, etc etc. Then practically all of the consumers with enough disposable income to care about those things buys iPhones, and Apple turns around and says "clearly, these people buy our hardware because they like being locked into the App Store!" I don't buy it.
> …except if they value a device that enforces audited software only, because they find it safe and convenient.
There's a lot of selective reasoning on both sides of this debate. We both know that consumers don't think about security enough that they would consciously avoid an alternate app store in order to keep themselves safe. We've all worked with tech-illiterate people long enough to know that they don't have survival instincts around security, they will happily walk out of a walled garden at the first opportunity, disable their firewalls, and install malware.
But it's also pretty obvious that consumers don't think about security enough that the majority of them are consciously opting into a curated app store as an informed decision. If Apple suddenly decided to throw open the flood gates and became even more open than Android, these users would not switch to Android. I have never heard an ordinary, non-techy, non-HN user tell me that they're buying an iPhone because it doesn't support sideloading.
The reality is, consumers don't think about this at all and they probably don't have much of a conscious preference for any outcome. Some tech users do, but the majority of Apple users are neither so security conscious that they would inconvenience themselves in any way to avoid 3rd-party installs, nor so conscious of consumer freedoms that they would inconvenience themselves in order to buy a device that supports sideloading.
I do not believe that this is a behavior that the market selects for in either direction. The smartphone market is not a reflection of social preference towards either security or freedom.
So I think it's just kind of nonsense to act like this is a question of consumer choice. If Apple is allowed to run a curated store, customers will keep buying Apple products and they'll ignore any apps that they can't install and they'll lose zero sleep about that arrangement. If Apple is forced to run a more open store, customers will keep buying Apple products and they'll install anything they want regardless of the warnings, and they will once again lose zero sleep over it.
And of course that's the case because there's no other way to square the idea that people willingly buy into the Apple ecosystem and also that those same people wouldn't avoid sideloaded apps if given the choice. There's no way we can pretend that one of those decisions is a consumer preference and the other one is the opposite and their brains have magically turned off -- the only explanation that explains both behaviors is that consumers are not making either of these decisions based on security/freedom.
----
Most consumers are apathetic to this entire debate. Again, there are some tech users that doesn't apply to. They are an extreme minority, but they exist. Some people use Android out of principle, some people consciously choose to use Apple devices because they don't want sideloading. Most people do not fall into either of those categories, and I just think it's a mistake to interpret consumer buying trends of Android/iOS devices like it's some kind of general expression of customer will about technical issues that they don't even understand in the first place.
You have to remember the majority of both Apple and Android customers probably don't even know what sideloading is; they certainly are not making informed decisions about it in any direction. To the extent that they are thinking about privacy or security at all, they are primarily thinking about the number of TV ads that they've seen for each product that used the word "privacy."
So when we talk about regulation, it's more valuable to talk about the effects on the overall market for smartphone apps and software innovation, the practical effects on security regardless of people's supposed choices about the risks they want to take, and about whether the market/security benefits outweigh the downsides. "What consumers want" is a misdirection; consumers don't want anything to do with this debate and they couldn't care less about whether or not Apple has an API for 3rd-party web browsers or whether or not the app store allows distributing GPL apps. They don't know or care what those words mean.
I mostly love this post but I want to quibble about one thing:
> And of course that's the case because there's no other way to square the idea that people willingly buy into the Apple ecosystem and also that those same people wouldn't avoid sideloaded apps if given the choice.
I think there is a universe in which:
1. Apple allows sideloading on iOS.
2. 95%+ of users don't ever sideload apps, preferring the safety and security of the official App Store.
Note that #2 does not mean consumers need to understand the precise risks of untrusted software, provided they generally understand that malicious apps exist and can harm their phone, whereas Apple promises everything in the app store is safe.
To make this happen, Apple would need to do some work, aka actually compete in the market! They would need to run an advertising campaign about the value of app store curation. They would need to improve search and discoverability, such as by not auctioning off the top search result spot. They might need to take a lower percentage of app revenue.
And Apple should have to do these things because it would be good for consumers!
I don't necessarily disagree, just that what you're describing is an education effort.
I do think that general users can understand what the security/freedom tradeoff of sideloading is; this is not something that's beyond the ability of normal people to reason about. I just think that in the current market they don't. I don't believe that the current behaviors we see where lots of people simultaneously buy into iOS as a closed platform and are also pretty bad about staying in walled gardens without being forced to can be explained by saying that one of those things is an educated decision and the other one isn't.
But you're right, that's not to say that in theory consumers couldn't be educated about the tradeoffs or that it wouldn't be good to have a general education effort in that direction. But I think it would need to be a shift and we would need to start doing that education. I'm only trying to push back on the idea that absent consumer education we can still make inferences about their preferences through just surface-level choices that they might be making for arbitrary reasons.
> To make this happen, Apple would need to do some work, aka actually compete in the market! They would need to run an advertising campaign about the value of app store curation. They would need to improve search and discoverability, such as by not auctioning off the top search result spot. They might need to take a lower percentage of app revenue.
Apple already does that marketing. It’s why I bought an iPhone rather than an android phone. Apple doesn’t have a lockdown on the smart phone market. They don’t even have a majority of it, I choose an iPhone because I don’t want to deal with my phone like a Linux box.
Yes, Apple has a monopoly on iPhones. But making the iPhone suck as much as other phones doesn’t seem like it will correct that monopoly.
> Apple already does that marketing. It’s why I bought an iPhone rather than an android phone.
Do you believe that if sideloading is offered on the iPhone that the majority of Apple users will be able to make an informed decision about whether or not it's safe to use 3rd-party stores?
This is exactly what I'm getting at: it cannot simultaneously be true that iOS customers already know the security/choice tradoeffs and are opting into the market fully informed about their decisions specifically because they want a walled garden, and also be true that those same people's brains are going to suddenly, magically turn off and they'll be incapable of making security decisions if they ever have an option in the iOS settings to enable sideloading.
Given that we know that lots of people buy Apple phones, and given that we know that many of those same users would choose to sideload possibly malicious apps without hesitation even though doing so would open them up to security risks -- the only explanation that reconciles those two contradictory facts is that the majority of iOS users are not thinking about security or user choice at all. And that's an explanation that's supported by what we seen in the real world as well: when talking to non-technical iOS users they don't tend to have strong opinions about this (if they even know what the debate is in the first place). If you go to a random person on the street and ask them why they bought an iPhone, "app store policy" will not be their response.
You may not be in that category; maybe you did buy an iPhone specifically because you wanted a closed ecosystem. But if so, you are not representative of the majority of iPhone users. The majority of iPhone users don't know what an "alternate browsing engine" is. The majority of iPhone users have probably never thought about how the app store works or whether they agree with it. They don't have preferences in any direction; the majority of iPhone users currently think we're all giant nerds for having this conversation at all.
And being informed about that conversation is what we're talking about when we talk about education. None of this is to say that people couldn't be educated enough to make informed decisions about sideloading or that they're incapable of thinking about security, but you're fooling yourself if you think an average smartphone user is currently thinking about app store policies at all when they buy a smartphone.
Consumers (myself included) already made their decision by choosing an iOS.
I don’t want every other game dev/streaming service pushing me to install their own “store” like they do on the other platforms. That’s why I keep choosing Apple.
Meanwhile, there's a total of 1 popular game and a bunch of "homebrew" style games very few care about that isn't on the Play Store. You're free to ignore apps not on the App store, but businesses are free to do what's best for them.
And I still don't understand the "I don't want to have multiple stores on my device". you probably have over 100 apps in your phone right now. And if you don 't you have dozens hidden under the surface for basic IOS functionality. is clicking into another store to install one more app a problem? App/Play stores don't even have all the bells and whistles Steam does (no forums, shit curation that spam companies SEO optimize for, no mod workshop, no community aspect, etc), so that's not an excuse.
When my wife chose iOS she didn't consent to Apple removing apps at the behest of Russian government, which Apple does. Apple altered the deal after the fact.
Apple should be absolutely prohibited from controlling what apps users want to run on their devices. If a user wants to install an app, and developer of said app wants it too, they should be able to do it without any restrictions. Or else Apple should start being honest and admit that they are only lending their devices to users, and not selling them, because selling implies full control over property.
Apple has put in place a pretty high barrier to entry for alternative marketplaces. It's not something a game developer is gonna be able to casually setup. Apple is requiring, among other things, having a bunch of processes in place for handling developer and customer support, as well as a €1 million standby letter of credit.
I wouldn't generalize too much. I think many people choose an iphone for many different reasons, and my guess is that your reason is probably not very common.
What other platforms? I've never been pushed to install another store on Android for example, so I highly doubt the situation would be much different on iOS.
because it provides no benefit to Apple while carrying significant risk:
- if users are happy with the alt store and it becomes highly successful, Apple loses revenue it would otherwise get from its own store
- if users are unhappy with the alt store because viruses, etc., get onto their phones, or it becomes a spam-ware cesspool, Apple gets the blame (the vast majority of users will not differentiate and then Apple has to spent tons of effort to "don't buy from stores X, Y and Z"--much easier to just disallow them)
Remember, most Apple users care about an optimum experience. If they care a lot about openness they would be using Android / Linux and are not Apple's target.
> I think Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection
No way they can do that, because the second something malware or fraud happens, you can imagine the headlines. Apple advertises the iPhone as a secure and private device. By notarizing third-party store apps, they still have the ability to remove malicious apps.
> Apple should have just allowed third party app stores without any guarantee of malware/fraud protection, let consumers decide for themselves if they want to risk it or not
In general I agree. But the support burden/cost goes up enormously. Ask Microsoft.
Just support alternate app stores with a button that allows consumers to restore their iPhone software to factory condition once they get bogged enough by bad software? They don’t have to do much more than that, and they can be up front about it.
1. Developers can continue to use the existing terms.
2. If a smaller developer elects to use the new terms, they pay less commission (10%) and a 3% transaction fee. That’s 2% less.
3. If they have more than 1 million users download their app, then there is an additional €0.50 Core Technology fee. If the developer is a commercial entity, then yes, they have to pay but in reality, it’s the end user that will have to pay.
3. If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0
) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model.
4. If the app is offered by a not for profit, then they don’t pay the CTF.
So, the new terms seem better for developers and users in the EU.
If I make OpenFlappyBird, and it's my little personal project, and I distribute it on OpenMarketPlace *for free*, and it's a surprise massive runaway hit in the EU, with 10,000,000 people downloading it, I now owe Apple, after making zero money myself, ~$400k, *per month* (thanks pzo for the clarification).
Your calculation is wrong its $400k per month, per year it would be $5millions. Even worse if after one year you make some bug fix update and all those 10m people update your app you will own another $5 million - and by default app store install updates automatically
When you compile OpenFlappyBird for iOS, your binary includes statically linked Apple intellectual property. Just as open source developers are entitled to use copyright law to enforce GPL rules[0], Apple is entitled to set license terms for use of this intellectual property.
While many operating system developers have historically chosen to license this intellectual property at no cost, many others have not. And regardless, norms aren't laws. Apple isn't required to give away their stuff for free.
Yes, Apple can do what it wants, unless it can't because the EU tells it that it can't, lawyers courts litigation etc. I get that.
What does that have to do with being asked to pay $400k/month for a free app that you made $0 from being considered by the person I replied to as "better for developers and users in the EU."?
It has everything to do with it. We don't necessarily disagree about what we think Apple should do. My argument here is that I care about the GPL being respected, which forces me to respect the fundamental principle of distributing code with coercive license terms, whether or not the coercion involves money. If Apple doesn't want to give their intellectual property away for free, they shouldn't be required to, even if it doing so is often the norm. Even if Apple had followed that norm in some other contexts in the past.
If we were discussing desktop operating systems, this is the moment where I would advocate switching to a properly Free Software (or near-Free) software ecosystem. Unfortunately there's nothing for me to advocate when it comes to smartphones; there aren't any serious recommendations to make which aren't catastrophically impractical for all but the most obsessive Richard Stallman acolyte.
Apple is not giving away intellectual property for free.
1. They're already charging for access to SDKs and services via their $100 annual developer fee. Quote from Apple:
> Membership includes all the tools, resources, and support you need to develop and distribute apps, including access to beta software, app services, testing tools, app analytics, and more.
2. In any case, reverse engineering, modifications, and distribution of IP for the purposes of interoperability is protected under the Computer Programs Directive in the EU
1. Irrelevant. You’re not receiving unlimited distribution rights with that particular purchase.
2. The directive gives end users the right to reverse engineer, modify, and make PRIVATE copies of intellectual property for the purposes of interoperability. It doesn’t create a new avenue for the redistribution of intellectual property.
I get it, so they get to make up new fees that previously didn't exist and claim they're a reasonable way to comply. If they get accused of not having enough toilets at the office, they can simply build one and charge $10000 per use to "cover operating expenses", brilliant! That's what this is.
Can you imagine if AMD or Intel tried to charge a fee to every program written using their instruction set? How about your web browser or keyboard manufacturer wanting a cut of your revenue? Is that ridiculous enough yet? Apple derives almost the entirety of their value from their app ecosystem, so don't act like giving developers access to development tools used to be charity before this new fee came along. Conveniently it only affects one side of this monopolistic fence, too.
Above all, there's nothing being distributed, the tools and SDKs certainly aren't, and APIs aren't protected IP, courts have already settled that.
These aren't new fees, it's an opt-in alternative pricing structure. For people who sell apps for money it is an attractive deal. (Which is a critical point. It's the people who sell apps who had the most to complain about. People who give apps away for free had little to complain about and don't have to do anything.)
Your third paragraph is technically incorrect. Even the simplest iOS binary includes fragments of statically linked Apple intellectual property. Software piracy is software piracy, no matter how simple the app.
> People who give apps away for free had little to complain about and don't have to do anything.
Pray tell, when can I publish my porn app on iOS for free?
Apple doesn't want it in their stores, which is fair, but I heard there was this piece of regulation coming around that gave us the right to sideload, and the right to use alternative browsers!
At this point I just look forward to the day they get hit with the spicy fines of percentage annual revenue. If you think that having to pay a fee to exercise your lawful rights will be allowed to stand, I have bad news.
> Software piracy is software piracy, no matter how simple the app.
The law also considers fair use, which is allowed infringement. Additionally, EU courts have ruled that "functional" parts of computer programs aren't protected at all.
Apple’s new rules now allow an avenue for porn apps, and those rules are actually great for paid apps. Hopefully you’re not talking about free porn? You want to women to take their clothes off and you won't even pay them for it?
> the right to use alternative browsers
You have the right to use whatever browser you want, just buy a device which supports that browser. Meanwhile, you're being embarrassingly short-sighted. Browser diversity is infinitely more important than browser choice. Apple is the only significant entity forcing browser diversity upon the web ecosystem.
> If you think that having to pay a fee to exercise your lawful rights
You do that every time you consume the goods and services provided by corporations. You have a lawful right to watch Netflix, but that right doesn't absolve you from paying for your subscription. You have no lawful right to decide how Apple monetises their intellectual property. And the EU has no right to give Apple's intellectual property away.
If you demand that governments force Apple to rearrange their deal, don't complain when they rearrange it.
> The law also considers fair use
Just using someone else's intellectual property because you think you're entitled to isn't fair use. This is the third reply in a row where you've repeatedly demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of law.
> EU courts have ruled that "functional" parts of computer programs aren't protected at all
Wow, there you go again. No they didn't. That ruling did not walk back copyright in any way. The ruling upheld the self-evident truth that functionality isn't protected by copyright. The example they cite is code which parses a specific file format. You can't declare the idea of a specific file format structure as intellectual property, and you can't stop someone from writing their own code to parse it. But that doesn't give them a right to use your code without permission.
When you put a sticker on your car, it interfaces with intellectual property of the car manufacturer. It would be absurd if you had to pay BMW each time you modify your car, or say play a song over the integrated radio because that’s only possible due to their IP.
They are however required by law to allow other app stores to function. This new licensing cost is a bald faced attempt to make other app stores nonviable. I'd be highly surprised if the EU is okay with that.
In my view, they are making alternative app stores way more attractive to FLOSS apps, because they will incur no fees from Apple, and the creators won't have to set up an NPO.
Edit: Seems I misunderstood, I just re-read the relevant section:
>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.
The fact that they are charging money for apps installed from non-App Store sources is ludicrous to me, if they aren't running the store, then they don't get to collect fees on it, imo.
It's still a rug pull under people who wouldn't have developed for Apple software had they known there would have been installation fees later years down the line
You don't get 1 million free installs if your app is an alternative app store. For the alternative app stores, they pay 0.50EUR for every first annual install.
> 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.
That says 'from' the alternative app store. The alternative app store itself needs to be installed via Apple's app store, and the wording for that made it sound like you have to pay .50EUR for each first-annual install of it.
it seems reinstall and app updates also counts - it's not just 1 million new app install a year but probably also:
1. You made a one time paid app. If in the first year you got 2M installs and sold app for 5$ you are profitable, but next year if those users who already paid will make an app update then you will own ~$1M to apple for those app updates even if you didn't make any new money from those users. You would be forced to change your business model to subscriptions.
2. If user has iPhone, iPad, apple watch and your app support all those platforms then probably this will be counted as 3 installs.
3. By default app store updates app automatically - if user has still some old iphone/ipad that uses from time to time this is getting even worse.
"A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store," [0]
So update do counts it just in a year (12 months) install, reinstall and update is counted as one. But once user bought a paid app and installed it then next year if that user update app developer will have to pay for this update
> If the app is free but offered by a commercial entity, they pay nothing in commission or payment fees (13% X $0 ) but they reach 1 million installs, then they do have to pay €500k. If the business has no revenue - that’s a weird business model.
I think that "growth first, revenue later" is actually a fairly popular business model, and I can imagine a lot of my own app ideas reaching 1M downloads with <$500k revenue (in an ideal world, but still)
It’s nothing to do with being overrun by an independent app store. That is a total red herring.
The real issue… stay with me, it’s a lot of words… is that alternative unreviewed or poorly reviewed app distribution mechanisms open a pathway to pervasive abuse via installation of malicious privacy violating apps onto devices of unwitting targets by people other than the targeted device users.
Despite the fact that Chromebooks are generally mediocre-to-bad hardware, there are a lot of school systems where this is exactly what has been done for classroom hardware.
Even outside of school systems, there is a wide variety of virtual desktop systems where office employees essentially get a fresh install of the OS every morning with their files where they should be — because they can't be trusted to manage a dedicated piece of hardware without adding malware.
For personally purchased Chromebooks, you are partially correct. You can set up a Linux sandbox on a Chromebook or you can run sandboxed Android applications from Google Play. You can even side load Android applications via "developer mode" or the Linux sandbox.
For managed Chromebooks, you are incorrect. They are usually configured so that the end-user cannot install additional software, enable developer mode, or set up the Linux sandbox, making them often less useful than Apple iOS or iPadOS devices.
The GGP comment said we should ban PCs [because they're too dangerous for most people to use]. And with Chromebooks or thin clients with virtual desktops, that is exactly what a lot of organizations have done.
None of which you addressed in your knee-jerk response that is about as coherent as "M$" was back in the day (and I did my share of that when I was young and stupid).
Why partially correct for personally purchased Chromebooks? Apart from what you mentioned, it's also (or at least has been, I haven't tried in a while) possible to install Linux natively on a Chromebook. That's a lot more open than anything running iOS.
You didn't specify managed Chromebooks, but I also didn't know they could be locked down to such a degree, thanks for informing me.
> None of which you addressed in your knee-jerk response that is about as coherent as "M$" was back in the day (and I did my share of that when I was young and stupid).
I honestly don't see why you felt the need to add this last paragraph. Was it "iDevices"? I just used it for convenience. Either way, the snark is totally unnecessary, your comment is better without it.
Partially correct because Linux is running under a sandbox and all applications within Linux are in that sandbox.
My comment about "school systems and corporations" did sort of imply "managed"; there's not a public school system in the world that would give their students unmanaged Chromebooks. Some private schools might, but the private schools are also more likely to have it tightly controlled and install spyware because of the "threat of cyber-cheating" (I wish I were kidding: https://www.eff.org/wp/school-issued-devices-and-student-pri...).
My apologies on the snark — it’s too late to edit it, but I read your "iDevices" as snark itself, since most of this discussion has been populated by people who have reflexive anti-Apple stances with exactly no nuance on their stances, so I let my frustration get the better of me. Mea maxima culpa.
No worries, and I realize my comment probably comes across differently than intended when in a frustrated mindset. To be honest, that parting shot took me a bit by surprise, and I was about to respond in kind, worsening the quality of discussion. Thankfully, HNs comment guidelines got the better of me : - )
At the risk of running the "partially correct" into the ground, I think that the conversion from Chromebook to "no longer a Chromebook but a poorly-specced Linux laptop" to still be "partially correct." It requires firmware configuration changes which may require some sort of jailbreak (per the article you linked)…and iOS devices have jailbreaks available, too, which allows the installation of other software.
Many things are possible for a suitably motivated person. But such things are unlikely to be done by your average device user (of any sort), because they don't have such motivation and can't even conceive of why they would bother.
Then don't buy Apple hardware. There are those of us who find Apple's walled garden approach preferable to having to (1) tweak everything all the time because we can't get audio working or (2) we have to run three different competing antivirus scanners that make our 2024 computer run like it was made in 1983 or (3) be stuck in Google's walled garden where even if you pay, you are still the product.
Does Apple need to change things? Yes. But I — and I know that I’m not alone on this — happen to agree with Apple that the DMA changes requested will reduce overall security for customers. There may be worthwhile changes that happen because of the DMA, but the reduced security position is real.
Or maybe you dont download 3rd party app stores. Nothing changes if you dont want it to. Apple makes a very good product, that doesnt mean they should be allowed to hamstring it anti competitively.
Apple losing 30% fee? Money lost for apple is money saved by people.
Why are you so invested in defending that company's shitty practices?
When someone already paid for their device they should be able to side load apps and use other app stores (without apple taking a 10% or 30% cut).
Are you an apple employee, marketer or investor? I bet that 30% cut on every app boosts their profits, but if people own phones they ahould be able to use them whatever way they want. Without apple taking a cut again just because.
To me this only seems to twist the arms of large companies like epic and Facebook. A small malicious app with thousands of installs can exist completely for free.
It doesn’t completely protect them, as Apple repeatedly states in the document. It simply can’t protect users as much as it could prior to the legislation, is their claim. But it helps mitigate some aspects.
What I don't understand is how the pricing methods that our parent comment called egregious offer any type of protection or mitigation. Could you elaborate?
Yes it steers larger app publishers away from utilizing other app stores, which in turn makes those other app stores less enticing, making it harder for other app stores to survive.
The app publishers don't have to choose this new pricing. They can stay with the old pricing, if they stay exclusively on Apple's App Store.
The reason Apple wants fewer app stores is that if fewer third party app stores survive, then there are fewer app stores with questionable or lacking review processes out there hosting malicious apps.
Just to make the connection super explicit for completeness, having fewer avenues for malicious apps is a good thing for user privacy.
There are other better ways to do it, like controlling one app store that has only well reviewed apps, but it seems the EU with the DMA left Apple only this bad way.
Apple gets other benefits from controlling the App Store, beyond protecting user privacy, don't get me wrong. Money being one, but not in a greed sense, but more because mostly that money pays the costs of running the development program, which are huge costs involving many thousands of Apple engineering salaries, which in turn enables the app ecosystem that benefits everyone. Another benefit is they can minimize the appearance of bad user experiences on their platform, to protect their brand, which they have invested a lot in and care a lot about.
>Instead, many people seem to have had a head-in-the-sand view that many of the services Apple provided were no-cost, or done out of goodwill.
The only service an alternative app store needs it the ability to be made and sideloaded. Apple justifies the 30% cut in teh App Store with all the stuff they do for you in packaging, distributing the app and updates, payment processing, etc.
But somehow they are making it a worse deal to not deal with those services. They are making it more expensive for any moderately popular app to opt out by suggesting that they need 50 cents anytime someone presses the install button. Which feels less like convenience and more like rent seeking.
The do not sell hardware at a loss, they charge yearly for seats to develop for IOS, and they have various other opt in services to incentivize making use of Apple and its App store. They will not be bleeding money if some companies decide to instead roll their own stack.
>It's almost like... those marketplaces will need to find a monetising model similar to how the Apple App Stores used to operate.
except they can't because they still gotta pay apple to exist, apparently. That's where it starts to reek of anti-trust.
All of the developer tools and SDKs have value and are used regardless of distribution channel. Those haven't been free, they've just been included in the App Store commission structure. Developers pay for those based on the value they generate (i.e. revenue). If you want out of the App Store as a distribution channel, Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.
Okay. So... charge more for the tools and SDK's. If you never launch an app or launch a completely free app, you still gotta pay apple. if those tools are more expensive, just push the cost where it belongs. Developers pay for being hosted on the app store on top of the tools and SDKs they access, it doesn't feel like a proper value to still be charged for that indirectly just because you don't want to be trapped in their walled garden.
>Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.
Well I wish them the best of luck in their future fights with the EU. Glad some government seems to not be thinking of the trillionaires first.
Part of the appeal about iOS for me is that apps are reviewed for quality and don't have obvious scams or spywear inside.
I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it. Compare this to the constant education and guidance I need to provide about websites, phone calls, text messages etc. The amount of targeted scams and spam we receive nowadays is excessive.
I think this is the problem: people want access to the 'app store' while forgetting/ignoring that the tight security and rigid processes are a feature, not a liability.
The problem is that big publishers have different rules than the smaller ones. As a small company you an risk losing everything. Big publishers have private accountmanagers working at Apple. There are literally 1000 stories of this.
Many users, myself included, choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware - that is the benefit of the review process. If you don’t want that, you can use Android.
The regulation allows for apple to still do malware scanning and blocking on apps installed even by third party stores. Google also does the same thing, this point is a nothingburger.
The human review part of the app store review does nothing to catch viruses.
Quality and good engineering is one of the main reason you people cite for buying Apple in this very thread.
Now you're suggesting that there ought to be a "warranty void if app is installed" sticker on Apple's supposedly premium hardware which is running Apple's supposedly hyper-secure operating system, otherwise some unwashed piece of software is going to damage it?
No such requirement exist on macOS, for obvious reasons. The double-think in these threads is astounding, repent.
I don’t have any skin in the game as far as Apple’s security reputation goes. No technically competent person would believe that malicious code running on a machine can be contained.
I don't believe there's such a thing as perfect security, I'm just astounded that someone who's not (1) a senile lawmaker being influenced by lobbyists, or (2) holding significant shares of AAPL; would even suggest that voiding warranty is a reasonable course of action if third-party software is installed on a general-purpose computing device.
Furthermore, claiming that Apple's review or signing processes are effective measures for preventing malware has no basis in reality. Apple has reviewed, approved and signed malware before, and they'll do it again because detecting malware is borderline impossible.
They do not possess magic powers that can suss out malware any better than industry average because (1) automated virus scanning is almost entirely ineffective against new malware and (2) they're not paying a team of specialists to reverse engineer and analyze app updates.
I get the thrust of your argument but I don't think that's a good analogy. Bad fuel can cause physical (including catastrophic) damage to the engine. Bad software cannot do something similar to the phone. At worst you will have to reinstall the OS.
Now I do agree that bad software can wipe all your data or hold it hostage, but Apple currently provides no such guarantees that software downloaded from the App Store won't do that.
How would that void a warranty? By the way those stupid stickers they put over screws also don’t void warranties either. Just because a corporation says something doesn’t make it true.
I agree, Apple’s servers aren’t free, sending push notifications isn’t free, sending down Apple Map tiles isn’t free. An alternative is you get a side loaded App Store with no costs but you don’t get access to Apple frameworks that cost them money.
So if I develop a Catalyst app for an M1 powered Mac I can distribute it outside of the Mac App Store, and freely use Apple's SDK (as long as I pay the yearly 99 fee to enter their developer program).
But if I distribute that exact same app on an M1 powered iPad outside of the App Store, I'll be subjected to a fee if my app goes viral, unless I agree not to profit from it and set up a non-profit organization?
> So if I develop a Catalyst app for an M1 powered Mac I can distribute it outside of the Mac App Store, and freely use Apple's SDK (as long as I pay the yearly 99 fee to enter their developer program).
As far as Apple is concerned, this is a huge oversight, and will be rectified in the coming years. The idea of computing devices as uncontrollable platforms is a mistake to them. It's only a matter of time.
You are misunderstanding or misusing the word progressive here...
If I have an app that makes $20,000 annually and all of the sudden there's a huge influx of new downloads (with no guarantee of converting to paid), then I am bankrupt. Apple will charge $4,500 to me PER MONTH for 100k downloads above 1 million. If I have 2 million downloads, I now owe Apple $45,000 per month.
This means the new structure is incredibly regressive. This will destroy small businesses.
I actually could not believe the fee calculator was correct, so I found the section in the terms[0] section 4.1 (A) lays out the fee, which is 0.5 EUR per app install above 1 million installs.
This could, in theory, be used as a way for groups of people to target and take down small businesses. These downloads include "redownloads" where a user may delete and then download the application again. I can already see the lawsuits if Apple does not implement mitigations for these types of attacks.
this is also killing one time paid apps business model - next year if those users update app you will have to pay to apple even you didn't earn any new money from those users. You would be forced to change model to subscriptions to be sure you can stay afloat.
In fact I’m using it perfectly in line with how the term is used for taxes
A progressive tax means you pay more the more the measure you use for taxation goes up
A regressive tax means you pay more the more the measure you use for taxation goes down
Regressive does not definitionally mean “bad for the small guy” even though that is a deterministic consequence of a regressive tax
However the term progressive in this context is “value free” and simply an indication of the direction of relative increase in percentage given the increase or decrease in the taxable measure
In this case the progression is a cliff so not very incremental
So, if I understand what you are trying to say, it's a proportional tax.
It is not progressive unless for some reason you view the "cliff" this way, though it is not a true cliff in the traditional tax sense, since exceeding does not remove the benefit of the 1m/year download credit.
My argument that it is regressive is not based on it being "bad for the small guy", rather I was just pointing out that, as a regressive fee when looking at revenue/download, it will be very bad for small business.
The penalty being hefted by truly popular free apps, this seems clearly aimed at protecting Apple’s investment into their own free apps, such as: Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Garageband,
Why? Because if you affect one aspect of Apple’s carefully crafted business model, you touch many more.
For instance, the fact that there’s no good free calculator on the iPad is bonkers. Why is it bonkers? Did Apple go “oopsie, we never got around to finishing the iPad calculator app.” for years? No. It’s a calculated decision.
Another example, why did Apple never have a weather app for the iPad UNTIL they bought out their best competition, which happened to be web-based?
Apple factors in everything. Will X push more sales of Y product or Z service? Will the fact that this feature is randomly not present in this set of devices help sell more mac/iPad/iPhone?
Apple loses more than the face-value (which is a lot) of their App store control. They lose a portion of control over their less-tangible business model.
If this wasn’t the case, they’d still be selling iPods.
> For instance, the fact that there’s no good free calculator on the iPad is bonkers. Why is it bonkers? Did Apple go “oopsie, we never got around to finishing the iPad calculator app.” for years? No. It’s a calculated decision.
2,000,000 updates acquires a minimum of $45,000 in fees per month!
I hope the EU fines them for blatantly trying to circumvent the law, and makes it a reoccurring monthly fine until they properly comply with the DMA.
[0] "A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, ..."
https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
It’s up from $100 USD, which is the yearly fee of a developer account. And you can choose the now-existing model, which obviously makes sense for a free app, so no, it stays 100.
You're missing the point. The point of this legislation is to open the platform up to competition. These fees accomplish the exact opposite, they ensure that alternative marketplaces aren't viable for freemium apps, i.e. most of them.
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.
Yes. The calculator shows a monthly amount assuming you get your annual-user-device-install spread evenly over the year. It should be showing the annual cost as the total and as a convenience show the average monthly cost.
From a quick look at that page, that's only the case if you're selling things in your app, not for free apps. And at 2 million installs, you'd only have to be making $0.03 per install to cover that amount.
> 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.
Can't imagine that flying with the EU...
The regulator will argue that the technology in the phone has already been paid for by the buyer of the hardware (which came with a license for iOS)
I’m paying how much to buy a phone from Apple, and then they also want to get paid every time I install something whether they’re involved or not? It’s none of their business what I want to do.
It's such brazen, inexcusable rent-seeking. Apple wants to insert themselves into everyone's personal business and demand a cut, like some mob boss. "That's a nice app you got there. Be a shame if something were to...happen to it."
Charge developers at-cost for hosting/distribution. Want more compensation for producing the hardware/platform? Here's my $1,000 receipt. Now go away.
I have some subscriptions that are managed through the subscription portal which is a convenient place to keep track of them. I can cancel renewals and the plan keeps working for the agreed upon period, except subscriptions from Apple. There it explicitly says that if I cancel renewal for a trial period, my access is immediately cut.
Seems a bit dishonest from our protector and guardian.
Hmm, I haven't seen this. But I am curious, how is that dishonest? It sounds like it is explicitly stated, so you know what will happen.
What Apple subscriptions? Logic Pro? Are you talking about a free trial or a paid trial? Also, if it is paid and you cancel and they terminate usage, do you end up seeing a refund for the balance of the time? With third-party devs, they have already sent the money along to the dev so they would have to pull back money to terminate immediately and refund the prorated balance of the subscription cost to the user. That would be hard on devs.
It was an apple arcade trial.
A free trial, otherwise it would be more than dishonest.
But the dishonesty comes from allowing users to take risk-free advantage of free trials from third parties (which is good for consumers and business in general), but subjecting the same users to potentially unwanted renewals when it comes to an Apple product.
Rules for thee, not for me, says Apple to devs and users.
Setting aside whether it is justified or not, Apple is involved. Your app is heavily dependent on Apple built APIs (and hardware). Up till now, developers paid $100/year plus a value based per user royalty that was(is) part of Apple's cut of App Store purchases. Now developers will pay $100/year plus a per user royalty when the user count exceeds 1 million. If the developer stays on the App Store with a free app, there will still not be a per user charge.
Edit: I should have been specific that I was referring to the Core Tech Fee that will apply even to free apps with more than a million users. Developers will still pay a value based royalty of 10% (small devs) or 17% (large devs) for paid apps.
You aren’t the only party in the transaction. There’s also the entity providing the application in the first place. Don’t use loaded phrases like “none of their business” which make the privacy wonks start salivating when that’s is not what this is about.
The point is that if I'm buying an app from, say, some Facebook store to install on my iPhone, Apple is not involved in this transaction, so they shouldn't get a cut.
Sure. And you'd think that is built in when an IOS dev pays their $100/year licensing fee.
If not, I wouldn't be opposed to the paying to review apps outside of the App Store (where their 30% cut assumedly takes into account for App store apps), as long as the review is purely for security and not to comply with App Store rules (since I am not hosting it on the app store). But charging everytime someone download a semi-popular app, or worse, updates that app (since the install fee is per year) starts to go beyond "what value am I bringing to this feature?"
I don't think the DMA factors into it too much. In the Netherlands, AirBnB got fined for billing service costs both to renters and landlords. I think the legal term was 'serving two lords' or something along those lines. Dutch law (and I suspect European law) prohibits billing intermediary fees to both sides. I'm very much being an armchair lawyer, but you can probably make a very similar case here: the user has already paid for the Core TechnologyTM as part of the phone, therefore you can't bill app creators for the same thing.
(Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer, armchair or otherwise)
They already do bill for the developer program with the $100/year developer fee. Tying it to installs also makes no sense if the fee is for the dev tools.
Well, no, it’s $100/year for the developer fee plus the 15-30% you paid to Apple if you charged money anywhere, which in the US is now 12-27% if you subtract Apple’s payment processing portion and soon in the EU this new complex scheme which I don’t even want to summarize, but amounts to a price drop in some circumstances and a price increase in other circumstances. There can be 3rd party app stores now but nobody who develops for the platform is taking advantage of the features and APIs Apple invested their own money and developer time into building out without paying Apple something above a certain threshold.
I mean whether it’s the EU or Epic, Apple isn’t interested in letting anybody just co-opt their baby.
>plus the 15-30% you paid to Apple if you charged money anywhere,
well yes. That's part of the rub. You'll pay $100/year even if you never launch an app so that makes sense. That's the cost of using Apple's SDK.
But you may now pay $.50 per install even for a free app if you don't/can't host outside of the App store, unless you declare your company/business a non-profit or educational instituion. This was previously $0. So the price hike can become absurd, to say the least.
>Apple isn’t interested in letting anybody just co-opt their baby.
Well tough luck. you made more money off your "baby" than many country's GDP. Microsoft got co-opted for much less decades ago. Governments' interest is in making sure companies do not in fact hoard all the money in the world, and when your product becomes a centerpiece of society something's got to give.
> well yes. That's part of the rub. You'll pay $100/year even if you never launch an app so that makes sense. That's the cost of using Apple's SDK.
You don’t need to pay Apple $100/year if all you want is Xcode and the documentation, but if you want to actually launch an app, that’s when you pay Apple.
> But you may now pay $.50 per install even for a free app if you don't/can't host outside of the App store, unless you declare your company/business a non-profit or educational instituion. This was previously $0. So the price hike can become absurd, to say the least.
Yeah, due to *checks notes* changes in the regulatory environment making their previous model untenable in the EU. It is now not worth the cost or business risks to Apple to let all free apps free-ride, just most of them.
> Well tough luck. you made more money off your "baby" than many country's GDP.
Two things: not my baby, and it is absurd to compare annual corporate revenue to GDP. GDP is a measure of economic activity within a nation, not a revenue figure, and revenue measures money earned before costs are accounted for.
> Governments' interest is in making sure companies do not in fact hoard all the money in the world
This statement is meaningless. A government that sees its role in society to cap profits is one that will assuredly wreck that society.
> and when your product becomes a centerpiece of society something's got to give.
Except that it’s not. Apple’s customers are customers who voluntarily spent money to purchase iPhones when other choices were available to them, and an iPhone is a luxury good, not a necessity. It is lucrative to invest in developing software for iPhones, but there are other businesses to go into.
This isn’t a high-school debate, you have to think about legal consequence of your arguments.
If the user has not exchanged consideration for the software, what is it, a gift? Do they want it?
You can’t force someone to accept a gift, now you have to sell me iPhone without iOS!
If user just paid for the hardware, locking down the hardware and forcing the user to use iOS is interference with the user’s property, potentially a crime.
Furthermore, you have to provide a user manual For The Hardware separately. How is that gonna work? What does it do without software?
So consequences of taking this route could be even worse - having to allow android to run on Apple hardware or something.
I didn't downvote you, but I'm guessing the downvotes are because of your unnecessarily snarky opening sentence. That's unfortuante because it overshadowed what was otherwise some interesting thoughts. In the future I would definitely remove unnecessarily inflammatory/offensive stuff like that since it takes away from your argument rather than helping it.
Not sure how you got from my separation of unit from developer program Point A to your BYOOS Point Z. The developer program ≠ the operating system.
The phone at least in the case of iPhones is the hardware unit plus the software (the operating system, the secure boot environment, the baseband firmware, and the apps bundled with the phone).
>If user just paid for the hardware, locking down the hardware and forcing the user to use iOS is interference with the user’s property, potentially a crime.
sounds good to me. But I don't think anyone's really arguing that here.
>You can’t force someone to accept a gift, now you have to sell me iPhone without iOS!
I mean, for Windows OEMs the licensing cost of windows is bundled in the price. Apple can do the same here. they are buying hardware plus a software OS. they aren't buying the entire app store as those apps each have separate costs assossiated with them. This is more like you can sell me IOS without the App Store (which again no one is really asking for. Just a reasonable option to sideload other stores).
How do we know that regulators won't like being mocked by Apple's lawyers? I can't think of many reasons why anyone would like that other than bribery to smooth things over.
Apple's entire plan is a farce that further illuminates the deathgrip they have on the entire platform. Preferential treatment of their own app store, requiring Apple's approval (notarization) of any app, regardless of distribution channel, their ability to revoke any developer's ability to publish app, regardless of distribution channel, etc.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to try to interpret dense legal text. We know what the spirit of the law is and I'm operating under the assumption that (1) EU regulators intended to effect real change, otherwise this discussion (and the regulation itself) is entirely pointless. (2) It's obvious that Apple's proposal makes no difference to the status quo, it just highlights the extent of their anti-competitive position.
Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the regulators will not be happy with the proposal unless (1) is false.
If you read the website about the DMA they are talking about business independence, user control, transparency, access and interoperability. There is no mention of fees - so a reasonable fee doesn’t look like it would cause issues.
The installation of apps from alternative app marketplaces is entirely controlled by Apple and iOS, and can only be done via a set of new APIs called AppLibrary [1]. That will make it very easy for Apple to track installs.
Those apps still have to be notarized by Apple, and the notarization will be checked upon installation. Presumably this will require an online check. So yes, Apple will track those.
I had the same thought. I imagine that Apple will have a very strict templated way to install and run an alternate App Store, you’ll have to use certain API calls to register the apps installed so that they show up on the Home Screen etc. So the reporting side of this should be reasonably easy.
I wonder if the alternate App Stores will have to be installed via the official App
store?! That’s the way I would do it. Gives Apple a way to shut them down if they try to circumvent the reporting piece to bypass the 0.50 fees.
I doubt the alt-stores will be doing any installing of their own. They probably get a higher level API and get to say "install this package at this url" and iOS will handle the usual verification checks, permissions, actual installation, Home Screen and App lists, etc.
I would not be surprised it is how the App Store has worked for a long time though. The store is the catalog and just tells the OS what to download and install.
The same way they can take a percentage of any completely external purchase "initiated" via an iOS app. It's literal racketeering and the courts are ok with that.
How are they doing to be able to track this? If there is an alternative App Store, I would assume they don’t share their download numbers with Apple. Is Apple going to track all apps running in iPhones?
They already do, and surely they continue to do so in the future, regardless of where the app came from. So finding out these numbers should be simple from a technical standpoint.
> The regulator will argue that the technology in the phone has already been paid for by the buyer of the hardware (which came with a license for iOS)
The user paid for the technology in the phone, but the dev didn't pay for use of Apple's IP to build their own product which they are offering to users.
I don't see regulators being able to challenge this (nor is it particularly unfair).
Hardware-platform SDKs generally cost tons of money. Visual Studio Professional Enterprise — essentially (if you think about it) the SDK for the Windows platform — costs $250 per month per seat!
(And that's cheap, compared to the SDK costs for proprietary platforms that people don't usually consider "computers." How much do you think Blackberry charges for a QNX SDK? There's a reason that maybe five companies in the whole world ever bothered to develop car infotainment "partner apps", before Apple CarPlay and Android Auto came along to make the platform moot.)
These SDK fees pay for "the platform" — but specifically, in IP terms, they give you a license to use the source code and libraries that come with the SDK, a license to redistribute the outputs of the compilers that come with the SDK — and so forth.
PC and smartphone platform vendors stopped charging so much for SDKs (or at least their non-enterprise-level SDKs) right around when they introduced App Stores. Because they changed the model, to one where the license you got with the SDK, said that your IP license to the stuff in the SDK, is paid for through royalties, by the revenue you make from publishing your app on their App Store.
And that's a perfectly valid arrangement. If you breach the contract, by not giving Apple royalties, then you don't have IP rights to redistribute the derivative works from their SDK any more!
The vast majority of Windows software doesn't need VS Professional or Enterprise; Community edition works just fine, and still enables you to access the entirety of the platform as a developer. Not to mention numerous alternative development toolchains, use of which doesn't require paying anything to Microsoft.
And then on top of that, Apple already charges developers for tooling via their dev license program. Which at least makes some sense since it's a fixed fee. The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards.
> The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards.
> The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards.
Do you also believe that Epic's Unreal Engine pricing is also ridiculous under the same standard?
It's an interesting distinction, or if there should be one, between libraries-that-provide-value and libraries-that-must-be-used-to-access-a-platform.
If I create a platform, and an SDK that targets that platform, and require everyone to pay for the the SDK to use my platform...
... is that the same as if I create a set of libraries (nee game engine) that avoids you from having to recreate that work yourself?
I'd hazard that the two are different, because Epic isn't really gating access to an "Unreal Device" by withholding access to their engine.
A developer is free to use a competitor's engine and distribute the same places. (Afaik, Epic's store doesn't have any "must be built on Unreal" qualifier, right?)
It's absurd to argue that Apple's libraries don't provide value.
Apple's SDK includes the compiler that target's Apple's chips, a fully-featured IDE, the platform specific APIs (sure), the UI framework, a shader API, a physics engine, etc.
Are there alternatives to using Apple's SDK, if you want to target Apple's hardware, which has a substantial market share?
Limiting the ability for dominant companies to crown themselves gatekeepers and toll all who pass was the intent of the EU rules.
If Apple tries to argue that the one SDK is intrinsically tied to the hardware, and also conveniently is required for apps on any store... that starts to sound a lot like 90s Microsoft and Internet Explorer, except Apple doesn't have the "But it's free" defense.
I mean ultimately both companies have invested R&D into building their SDKs and it comes across as bizarre to me to suggest that one company should be legally banned from charging licensing fees for their use.
But if we've decided that it's unhealthy to allow dominant tech firms to tax everyone for access to their platforms...
Then an SDK might become the final area where they attempt to do so.
It'd certainly be a lot cleaner if there were 2 SDKs: a base, primitive-only freely licensed one with the bare minimum for interacting with all platform components and a higher-level, premium paid one that had better DX.
So Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo too? So much for "ridiculous by all industry standards" when there is an entire software industry where this is commonplace.
Apple already charges for the SDK, the $99/year developer fee. This is a second, unrelated, app install fee. There's certainly nothing similar on PC, Mac, or Android
Professional and Enterprise are two distinct editions. Professional is $45/user/month, and it's a capable IDE even if Enterprise has some extra features.
GCC — or even something like Mono — doesn't come with the headers et al for the GUI parts of Windows. And those headers are protected IP, even if you re-derive them from scratch — just ask Google about the JDK!
Certainly, you can compile Hello World with GCC — or maybe even a POSIX network server — to run under WSL. And maybe redistribute the resulting hello_world.exe to other WSL users.
But what happens when you want to compile that same program to run "on Windows" directly, to be redistributable to people who don't have WSL installed?
Well, even if you're using GCC, you'll probably end up linking your program against the Visual C Runtime. (Because otherwise you'll need to ship — or statically link — glibc.dll. Which is a bit ridiculous.) And the Visual C Runtime is... part of Visual Studio! A part that's freely redistributable, yes... for those developers with a valid Visual Studio license. Otherwise, Microsoft can sue you for packaging MSVCRT.DLL with your app.
And as your app gets more complex, that just keeps being truer. While Microsoft Store apps can just list their package deps and get the store to install them, if you're a standalone Windows UI app, you might have to redistribute, say... DirectX. Or SQL Server Embedded. Or even — and this is a very clever trap on Microsoft's part that many FOSS devs don't notice — some "sample library code" from MSDN. All of which are offered under that same redistribution licensing clause.
---
Note that there are high-level "app platforms" that attempt to work around all this — mostly by not having you compile anything to target the Windows native ABI at all — but rather, just providing a higher-level platform abstraction, that you write code against, where that code ships with the executable but not within the executable (so as to keep the executable's Microsoft-stamped code signature intact.) This is how Electron's Windows support works, for example. Also, most game engines, e.g. Unity, Love2d, RenPy, etc.
I believe that there are also a few "app platforms" that go another route, trying to avoid the Windows runtime altogether — using funky low-level static-compiled languages to directly address the NT syscall ABI, and then building up from there to doing multimedia and networking. I think Haxe is like this?
But while Haxe has some level of windows-and-menus UI toolkit (http://haxeui.org/), it's not one that supports OS accessibility APIs (e.g. screen-reader support), or DPI scalability, or high-contrast mode. (In other words, it's just not suitable for writing B2B software where your users are under a bunch of business requirements on what the software they give their employees to use, needs to be able to offer them.)
Also, you're not getting integration with OS file-picker dialogs, or multi-format drag-and-drop / copy-and-paste, or embedding of arbitrary graphical COM components within the view, or — especially — being embedded as a graphical COM component within some other app. (This last one is pretty important for boring line-of-business apps like tax-filing software; you want your app to be able to render its document filetype to the viewport when documents of that type are opened in a browser!)
In short: for making anything that you charge for... you're still gonna just pay Microsoft for Visual Studio.
WSL has nothing to do with all this - we're talking about gcc building directly for Win32. That aside, you make several claims that are outright wrong.
First of all, MinGW does come with all Win32 headers of their own included, and no, they're not protected IP (or at least Microsoft never made the claim to the contrary).
With respect to C runtime, Windows itself ships with a bunch of them, packaged as system DLLs. MinGW used msvcrt.dll historically, which is the one that originally shipped with VC++ 6.0 before getting included into Windows. Since Win10, Windows ships an ABI stable C runtime called uCRT, precisely so that different toolchains have a single shared library for better interop. Modern versions of MinGW link against uCRT. Visual Studio still ships the C++ runtime, which MinGW doesn't need because it has its own.
On top of that, unlike Unix, in Windows, CRT is not the basic OS API, but mostly a relatively thin wrapper around rich native Win32 APIs, so there are far more around than just different versions of VC++ runtime and glibc. For example, C++ Builder has its own.
If you're a standalone Windows app, you don't have to redistribute DirectX. You can just target the minimum version supported for your matrix. If you're targeting supported versions of Windows (i.e. 10+), that'd be DirectX 12. And then of course you don't have to ship SQL Server Embedded because you don't need to use it; there are plenty of alternatives such as SQLite and Firebird.
Just about the only situation I can think of where you have to pay Microsoft for the privilege of developing for Windows is when writing drivers.
All of what you're saying is true of modern Windows; apologies, but I last used Windows in the 98/ME/2000/XP era, and my arguments are based in that era.
Despite things having changed, though, I think "Windows in the before-times" is still a viable precedent to cite in its own right, for Apple's current behavior. IP case-law hasn't changed too much between then and now.
For example: when developing for Windows 98, you needed to ship DirectX, because otherwise there would be no pre-installed version of DirectX — and the average user's internet connection wasn't fast enough to download it in any reasonable amount of time!
And uCRT + WinSxS preloads both exist now, but obviously, neither did before Windows Vista. Before then, you couldn't predict if any MSVCRT was gonna be available, so if you were trying to publish e.g. Apache Server But Running In a Windows Tray Icon With A Little Management Context Menu (a common thing back then, for some reason), then you needed to package the particular MSVCRT your app was compiled with. Which is why you never saw FOSS binary releases for Windows back then; instead, there was the FOSS project, with compilation instructions that involved downloading the right MSVCRT yourself; and then there were random third-party downstream "freeware" releases published on CNet or whatever.
> and no, they're not protected IP (or at least Microsoft never made the claim to the contrary)
They haven't, because there's nothing to gain from them doing so, because they aren't trying to run an ecosystem that has a per-install fee, unlike Oracle ca 2010, Unity last year, or Apple right now. (And they never will, because they're all-in on service fees (Azure) instead.) Without that incentive, Microsoft has every reason to listen to the competing incentive — that of making Windows a platform that's friendly and open to developers, that doesn't force them through this kind of bullshit.
But if, in some hypothetical world, Microsoft were to be charging developers per app install... then Microsoft would likely tell MinGW to stop redistributing "their" headers, so as to force more developers onto the SDK and through that into being install-monitored. And they would have every right (according to current IP case-law) to do so.
They wouldn't have a mandate to do so, mind you — source files, including headers, are copyrighted, not trademarked, so they don't need to enforce their IP rights to keep them. They could simply choose to enforce their copyright against only the most egregious violators: those who are clearly making millions of dollars off the use of their platform, without paying them a dime. As Apple is trying to do now!
I did some basic C/C++ development back in the Windows 2000/XP era. I never needed to pay for a Visual Studio license, I didn't even use Visual Studio. I was hacking things together in notepad and gcc at the time.
I did years of development work against Windows machines before I got my first paid Visual Studio license, and it was still like a couple years until the first time I bothered actually installing the Windows SDK.
> And they would have every right (according to current IP case-law) to do so.
Actually, the result of the Google v Oracle case was ultimately that what Google was doing constitutes fair use - and what MinGW is doing is even more clearly in the fair use zone than what Google was doing. So, current IP case-law is firmly on the side of "copying APIs for interoperability is fair use".
MSVCRT.DLL has been an OS component since Win2000. But, as noted earlier, you never needed a CRT to write Win32 apps. Indeed, it was not uncommon especially in the 98/XP era for apps to be written directly against Win32 API (or with very thin wrappers like ATL and WTL; I did my share of that even as late as 00s). And even then pretty much all alternative toolchains, including C++ ones (notably, Borland C++), used their own runtimes anyway. The actual shared platform was always Win32, and there was never any sort of charge, direct or indirect, for using it.
The main reason why people shipped their own version of the CRT for VC++ was because they wanted to use a more modern version of VC++ itself (e.g. because of better support of new language features; C++ was just standardized then and all compilers were updating very rapidly to catch up), which then required a new version of the CRT that wouldn't be guaranteed by the lowest target OS version. But even VC++ did not require you to use the CRT; you could just #include <windows.h> and linker had a flag to drop stdlib.
And even when you wanted to use MSVCRT while targeting platforms where the desired version wasn't guaranteed, you still didn't have to ship it. All redistributable packages were (and are!) also published as standalone installers that users could just download and run themselves; indeed, it was not uncommon for open source Win32 software to require one to do exactly that. The bundling packages that MS also provided for integration with your own installer are a convenience, not a prerequisite.
The story with DirectX is very similar. DirectX did in fact ship as an OS component with every version of Windows starting with Win95 OSR2 and WinNT4. The reason why games pretty much always bundled it is because they wanted to use something newer, given how fast things changed back then. But, again, it was always available separately as a standalone installer, and any app that needed it could request it to be installed manually by the end user, and some apps did just that. I will also note that those standalone CRT and DirectX installers were also commonly redistributed, e.g. on large websites like Tucows.
With respect to Win32 APIs themselves being somehow protected through some form of IP, that wasn't the case, either. Again, Borland C++ / Builder used its own headers with no problem. And then of course pretty much every non-C toolchain that wanted to expose the dev to the OS API also had to provide their own equivalent of windows.h, which they all did - Delphi being probably the most prominent third party example, but there were numerous others - Ada, Eiffel etc; and even most scripting languages such as Perl. Again, back in that period, I myself wrote a bunch of Win32 header translations for then-nascent D. I don't recall anyone ever bringing up the notion that doing so was somehow legally risky; it was understood as an obvious and necessary step in development of any toolchain targeting the platform.
XP era also includes early .NET. The interesting thing about that one was that the .NET Framework redistributable (which, again, was provided as a standalone installer) also includes the C# and the VB command-line compilers, and since .NET metadata is embedded into the binaries, the result is that you effectively got a free build toolchain that let you do anything .NET could do. XP SP1 even included .NET 1.0 builtin, which I believe was the first time Windows came with dev tooling sufficient to write a full-fledged app for itself in the box.
The bit about "you never saw FOSS binary releases for Windows back then" is plainly not true. FOSS in general wasn't nearly as widespread then, and people who cared about it generally didn't care much for the DOS/Windows ecosystem, so mainline would often not even bother and just assume POSIX, and porting was a slow effort that required constant ongoing maintenance to keep up-to-date with upstream. But what did exist would normally be redistributed in binary form; examples include MinGW, Perl, and Python. Similarly, when using FOSS libraries like zlib, it was common to download and use redistributed prebuilt DLLs + import libs for your compiler.
So, to summarize: Microsoft never charged developers for access to the platform itself, and you could always write and distribute Windows apps without paying anything to MS. It charged the devs for tooling, but it also left the door wide open for alternative tooling, which did proliferate to the point where in some markets like Europe there was more Windows software written using Borland tools rather than Microsoft tools.
So what happens when a FOSS SDK for iOS pops up, which only calls the APIs on the OS itself and doesn't include any Apple-copyrighted stuff in it? What would you pay Apple for, then?
GCC — or even something like Mono — doesn't come with the headers et al for the GUI parts of Windows. And those headers are protected IP, even if you re-derive them from scratch — just ask Google about the JDK!
You are arguing that a replacement for windows with an identical API would be protected IP. Not the toolchain for building applications.
My take is that Apple are doing the maximum possible to protest their disagreement with consumer protection laws interfering with their ability to do whatever they want. Their announcement has the tone of a spoilt child, with an air of punishment to be applied to EU users and particularly developers. It’s bad faith compliance.
Rather than protecting the interests of users, they are more interested in obstructing the DMA and its attempt to promote competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices.
Fortunately, there are quite a few clauses in the original regulation[0], like 31-33, and some clauses in the 50s IIRC, that explicitly mention some of the coercive tactics Apple is employing.
Like leveraging other mandatory services provided by Apple to incur fees.
My favorite part: "EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage."
I mean it's like saying that having a choice before being educated by one of the parties among the choices is a bad thing and it looks bad.
But this is the argument with the cookie banners again, isn't it? "Surely choice isn't a bad thing", except that everyone hates them and just clicks allow anyway. At least this regulation is only going to annoy people in the EU and not globally this time.
> everyone hates them and just clicks allow anyway.
This is an overbroad generalization and false for me at least. I will always take the two seconds to disable non-necessary cookies, or just bail on the site if it doesn't have the option or isn't absolutely necessary.
Fine, almost everybody. If there was any way to verify though, I'd put money on the numbers of people irritated by cookie banners and geo-blocks for websites was enough to tip the Brexit vote. I think the EU needs to be very careful about how these regulations are viewed by normal people.
> I think the EU needs to be very careful about how these regulations are viewed by normal people.
The EU doesn't decide how Apple complies with their regulation. If Apple wants to throw a temper tantrum and degrade the user experience, it is nobody's fault but theirs.
No, but a bad decision at this point is going to be tricky to resolve due to the type of user that might end up using it.
The only people who might be influenced by this popup are people who don't know that other browsers are an option. Are these the people that is makes sense to drop them into a random browser, are they going to be able to make a good choice from this popup do you think?
Is there a benefit to dropping some unsuspecting user into Opera, for example, and letting them deal with the myriad of incompatibility issues for the sake of an illusion of choice?
Is there a benefit to you, the expert user, to getting this popup when the first place you're going in Safari is the Chrome download page anyway?
Apple chose to comply that way. We're arguing over poor design right now because this is a user story for no one - that's Apple's fault. There are thousands of ways to comply with the DMA, and the proposed one here is nonsense; Android and Mac exist as proof that you can give people choice without sabotaging them.
Ostensibly, you're right; why give the uninformed masses an imperative browser decision? If Apple was willing to make it optional or put it behind a Developer Mode, they wouldn't be faced with such stark regulation. Blame whoever you want, but the writing has been on the walls for years - Apple sabotaged themselves if they weren't prepared for sideloading.
"Confronted" not presented. Lol the screen should also state in bold lettering "This freedom is forced on you by EU which we hate. You will pay for this, and it's THEIR fault, not ours. No hard feelings."
The serious issue is for apps having more than 1 million installs (YouTube, Zoom, Slack, Outlook, Amazon, etc.). Strong "coincidence": these are the companies you don't want to allow to create alternative stores to, because they have their own payments methods: how long would it take Amazon, Google or Microsoft (the only one without a payment service, AFAIK) to run their brand new "Google/Amazon Store for iOS"? Probably they have it already half baked there waiting to be released.
Now, they will have to either accept to use the App Store "way" (the current way, so all good) or pay huge fees for their own apps. Will they do it? Is it worth it? I am very curious!
Alternative, smaller stores for smaller apps, instead, will be there and should be OK, as long as the apps don't exceed 1 million installs in a year (which is a lot, I guess).
EDIT: I missed Meta Pay, apparently another payment method from one of the companies with the most downloaded apps. Yeah, it seems really that Apple doesn't want other stores from big companies.
This is absolutely not a win by any stretch of the imagination, it's a farce. Every single app will still require Apple's blessings and approval to exist in any app store on iOS.
The moment any app on "f-droid for iOS" does something that Apple disapproves of, they can revoke its notarization and banish its developer from their walled garden.
Yeah but why are we doing "the trial" (of Kafka) already? Where is it written that they will take away their license if one app doesn't pass?
I see a lot of negativity. Some of it is justified, some it's not.
I see only good things: finally after this, other countries will move ASAP to do something similar.
EU gave Apple a vague and open legislation. Apple's response was "okayish" and acceptable up to a certain point. Let's see what happens in the next 5 years.
Notarization has added nothing but another mandatory fee to develop for Apple's platforms. Your app can also get banned if it doesn't distribute malware. It will be abused as means of censorship (porn, drugs, gambling, etc.)
Yeah but that's not THE apple review that everyone complains about online. Notarization is a faster process. I know because I did it on my personal project without submitting it to the app store.
And it's notarized and can be used on other people's computers.
The legislation is not trying to stop it but it's trying to regulate it, because it got wild lately.
You can read it here[0] and for the entire content here[1] (this I didn't read yet).
Gatekeepers are allowed to exist, but they need to loosen up a bit. It's not an option that you are the only one able to distribute apps on a phone.
Right now on Mac OSX you can still install apps from outside the App Store - if the developer didn't notarise the app, your OSX will shout at you before letting you install it, but you can still do that.
On iOS you just can't (unless you root it, I think). That's where the law came in. And, arguably, I am not sure if the same can be done on Android (getting stuff from F-droid doesn't seem something that average Joe knows how to do).
On the other hand, the way I imagine Apple wants to do it:
- The user clicks on a link (from whatever App Store out there)
- Downloads the app
- Gatekeeper on iOS (behind the scenes) checks if the app was notarized
The user flow seems similar to what we currently have on OSX as well, but with a mix with Apple Store: you can only install an app if it was notarised by Apple to prevent malware and tampering. This is not an app review, so you can still have private API calls (as far as I know).
This is also why the responsibility falls on the external store: it's with the certificate from the external store that the notarisation will be done (on the app), as individual developers might not want anything to do with Apple Store at all. But someone has to - and this someone is the new marketplace.
To be honest: I am not worried at all about the notarisation, it typically takes not too long, and it's a very basic step to prevent malware - can you still do ugly things? Probably yes, but this is really to set a minimum standard of what's allowed to have on the phone. If you question this step "why shouldn't I be allowed to have anything that I want on the phone", I even agree with you, maybe EU will tell apple to disable entirely the OS gatekeeping process (?).
> Right now on Mac OSX you can still install apps from outside the App Store - if the developer didn't notarise the app, your OSX will shout at you before letting you install it, but you can still do that.
I don't think this is true, I recently tried to port one of my programs to macOS. After one of my test users downloaded the program and tried to run it, macOS claimed that the program was corrupted and that they needed to contact the developer for assistance (paraphrased). There was no way to bypass this error from the GUI.
This was odd because the program ran perfectly fine on my machine (virtualized macOS). The error went away after the test user ran some terminal commands to clear "downloaded from the internet" flags from the file.
> The error went away after the test user ran some terminal commands to clear "downloaded from the internet" flags from the file.
My guess is that this is something the user has to explicitly check in the Privacy & Security "App store and identified developers" and in addition, when someone tries to execute the binary, the user has to explicitly allow (again) in the same privacy & security to execute that binary. That's how it works AFAIK.
If you distribute apps not signed/notarized, users have to explicitly allow them - there is no way that you can just double click on the "MyProgramm.app" icon and it works.
Another trick is to enter the "MyProgram.app" folder and double click the binary inside. That might work, although it's a pain for some.
> In order to establish adequate financial means to guarantee support for developers and customers, marketplace developers must provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 prior to receiving the entitlement. It will need to be auto-renewed on a yearly basis.
It doesn't seem like the fee waiver removes this requirement.
And it seems like the cost for a standby letter of credit is roughly 1-10% of its value per year? So effectively it costs €10,000 to €100,000 per year just to have an alternate marketplace, separate from the core technology fee....
> If the Core Technology Fee does not apply to Your Applications under this Section 4.4, any Alternative App Marketplace (EU) You distribute may only distribute Applications from You or another developer registered with the Apple Developer Program and not subject to the Core Technology Fee under this Section 4.4.
So a hypothetical F-Droid for iOS would need all its apps to be from registered developers with fee waivers. (And individuals are not eligible for the waiver, so it could only contain apps from other non-profit organizations.)
App notarisation will likely prohibit F-Droid self-building of apps, as developers would still have to provide 'notarised' binaries to third-party app-stores, which kinda kills the model of F-Droid. And Apple will charge developers directly for their installs, so F-Droid being non-profit doesn't really matter.
You keep posting about an F-Droid-like store for iOS is not only possible, but imminent now. I doubt that - how many devs will make something exclusively for the smaller EU market, how many will do so for free, and how many will be willing to register as a non-profit?
The centre of that Venn diagram is developers for apps on iOS's F-Droid-like, and I think that's a very small subset indeed - especially considering the paperwork required to become a non-profit.
Maybe the store itself will put in the work, but do you honestly believe every dev with an app on F-Droid will put up with the requirement to register as a non-profit?
As far as I can tell The Commons Conservancy is not a 501c3 (or Netherlands equivalent), at least from their "organization" page. Not making money != a nonprofit organization.
Apps outside the app store are still subject to Apple's review. So don't hold your breath hoping for most apps you value from F-Droid making it on IOS.
Yeah it’s a win for me. I do not care about other huge corporations making money via alt stores. I do care about an FDroid like alternative that will let me download emulators!
App installs through alternative stores can not use the ‘1 million install credit’ that comes with the apple developer program.
As in, you pay from the first install. (Except as ngo)
No, that's only for the alternative store app itself. Epic will have to pay the €0.50 fee on the first install of Epic Games Store but not on the first million installs of Fortnight.
I don't think it's necessarily required for an alternative app store itself to be an iOS app, so Google, Microsoft etc. could presumably at the same time be running a (web-based) iOS app store and continue publishing their own apps (Youtube, Gmail, Outlook etc.) via the old terms without a per-install fee.
This is just my very preliminary reading of the terms though, I might be wrong and the two might actually be coupled!
You're right - in my previous message I made the mistake of implicitly "mixing" the apps with the app stores.
However, this is due to the fact that no average company typically has the time/money/interest to run an app store as their side project, except for the big players, which in many cases happen to be the same people producing high volume apps and having payment methods capabilities. You could claim that Telegram or Zoom have no app store and they would never plan to do so, and you'd probably be right, but the BIG or very BIG ones are MS, Google, Amazon and Meta one way or another have already their own app stores. They even mention that "less than 1% of the developers would be affected by the Core Technology Fee". You want to really keep these guys on your app store, because imagine if you didn't find office, zoom, gmail, youtube on the official App Store. That'd be really weird - it reminds me of the microsoft store (on some old windows phone I had the pleasure to setup...) that didn't have some important apps.
To answer the other question - they could be running an app store...:
Why would Google or Valve run a store for lower-volume apps?
Please note that they mention "less than 1% of the developers", not "less than 1% of the apps hosted". It means: google, facebook, ms, epic games, etc. Those are the guys that you will probably never have on the alternative app store (because of the huge fees that they might have to pay).
EDIT: In 2022 there were about 34 million registered developers [0]. 1% is 340'000. This is where the big money is.
More like Epic. Valve had 15 years to consider a steam store on Android games (and honestly that was my biggest hope with all this disruption. Proper premium games to come back to IOS/Android), but they only really have a front end for the PC store in that time.
Epic has had an Android store in the roadmap since the beginning of the EGS. They still seem years out but I imagine this news will accellerate development for that.
Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Netflix and Microsoft should just demand 30 % of the device purchase price before allowing access to any services. If Apple is allowed to limit access at their own terms then others should be able to do so too.
I don't think any company with a huge market share should be able to do so, so I hope Apple will have to open up at least to the degree Android has done.
This seems that Apple went to way too much thought to avoid a simple solution: Just let users sideload apps and put up a few warning messages like Android. Must have had a bunch of high-priced lawyers think this up.
Also, what is this Core Technology Fee for all apps? Maybe Apple has been losing money on the App Store infrastructure so they want to make it up? Or is this just a bid to try and keep as much control as possible? Seems that Apple wants to go into this kicking and screaming...
As someone in cybersecurity, I understand the need for secure apps, but I think Apple has been going about it in the wrong way.
It's about preventing someone like Epic asking Fortnite players to download Epic store to download Fortnite. It's about preventing that sweet Apple tax going to zero. Apple tax on games is a huge chunk of app store revenue. It might be about not creating many app stores, launchers in the ecosystem, but for Apple, it's always about getting that service revenue, to protect the stock price, margins, profitability, and getting a good review on wall street. No many app stores, security is just a way to sell to consumers. Like many mentioned, there are many ways to design the system that offers security, even content moderation without all of the hoops.
> This seems that Apple went to way too much thought to avoid a simple solution: Just let users sideload apps and put up a few warning messages like Android. Must have had a bunch of high-priced lawyers think this up.
You know how every few weeks there’s an article about something dodgy in an alternate Android store which the scammer never even bothered to submit on iOS? There’s a real problem here and these seem generally like solid technical moves but paired with heavy handed language which reminds me of the way so many websites put up those “look at all the cookies the mean old EU is making us tell you about!” warnings. Notarization in particular seems like a good move for avoiding the common problems around impersonation or silent alteration of binaries, and I think the browser engine requirements are justifiable solely by looking at how many popular Electron apps take months to patch critical vulnerabilities.
> The good news is that the bad apps in question have since been removed from Google’s official Android app store. However, the cybercriminals behind this campaign are also using a separate set of 12 malicious apps on unofficial third-party app stores to spread the Xamalicious malware. These apps need to be sideloaded onto your smartphone though as they are installed via an APK file.
> You know how every few weeks there’s an article about something dodgy in an alternate Android store which the scammer never even bothered to submit on iOS?
Every few weeks there is an article about that!? That doesn't happen. It's a non-issue. Likewise on MacOS or Windows. I suspect these scenarios in the comments here are just made up by Apple fans to create FUD.
This is a pretty simple concept: the easier it is to run code on a device, the more options attackers have to trick users into installing it. Whether or not you follow the field, we have at this point 4+ decades of experience with people getting compromised because they installed something they thought was safe, and over that time we have seen attacks get more sophisticated as operating systems added safeguards. We’ve also seen the rise of entire businesses built on software which does things users wouldn’t have agreed to had they been fully informed. There’s a spectrum from classic malware to the quasi-legal stuff: spyware for governments or businesses who don’t trust their users, abusive spouses, or parents with control issues; and companies like Facebook who provide legitimate apps but also deeply detest transparency about the data they collect or how they use it. All of those represent enough money that they can provide polished apps, install instructions, customer service, etc. and many of them try to conceal their activities enough that all of the major operating systems have added limits to what applications or even administrators can access or run in the background, mandatory notifications when something sensitive like using your camera or microphone is requested, etc.
Apple’s answer to this was the App Store’s strict limits which has been effective (a lot of stalkerware has detailed instructions for sideloading in on an Android phone but either doesn’t support or has far less functionality on iOS) but that’s not the same as saying that’s the optimal balance for users. The EU is also interesting because they have strong privacy laws, so it might be the case that it’s not so bad there but would be a disaster in the U.S. without such restrictions making it riskier to hide intrusive activity. I would like to try other models but I also think that the more successful ones will look like what Apple announced where the model isn’t just “game over, buy a new phone” if someone ever makes a mistake about who they trust.
If it would be a disaster on iOS, it is already a disaster on Windows. It is not a disaster on Windows. Therefore it wouldn't be a disaster on iOS. (Modus tollens)
Have you ever done any Windows support? I have, and there are very, very few people you can trust not to install dodgy software if they have the ability to do so. No matter what level of warning dialog you put up, there’s some guy at a call center in India making good money walking your grandfather through the process of installing their root kit so he can help them fix their online banking.
Again, I’m not saying this isn’t a trade off with real consequences but if you want to contribute to the conversation, at least acknowledge the millions of people who’ve suffered severe embarrassment, lost money or even their lives because they trusted the wrong person’s software. This is bigger than your emotional relationship with Apple.
That’s the viewer, and it has limits on what they can do and how they can describe it to users. On the desktop side, we have a long history of things surreptitiously installing other things or misrepresenting the source or capabilities of the software.
Here’s an old example: one of the researchers in the lab I worked at mentioned that his laptop was acting odd. A quick check revealed, yeap, loaded with malware including a browser extension injecting ads into every page. He mentioned that he’d been cruising video sites the other night and had installed the free viewer plugin on one of them…
Again, I don’t think that the situation is perfect or that the trade off shouldn’t be consciously reconsidered but there is a context of millions of people doing things like that. People making mistakes is a daily occurrence and even relatively savvy users can be socially engineered.
To be fair, that is their viewer application. Not an actual screen sharing server. It would be very difficult for a scammer to do anything to your device or account using the app in the App Store as is.
Have you forgotten all the extortion that happens because of all the encrypted files? Just because people kept opening bill.pdf.exe.
A lot of companies don‘t allow their users to download any files from cloud services an quarantine and manually review e-mails with attachments and download links. A lot of companies running Windows are also starting to use AppLocker which is a way to only allow whitelisted executables to run. So yes this is a huge problem and billions of dollars are spent on it (be it losses through attacks or money spent on countermeasures).
It's so pathetic right?
Please, please Apple, charge me for everything through the nose.
I'm not worthy of deciding for myself and using my own brain.
I also don't know anyone outside my Techbubble who has sideloaded Apps, neither someone who has gotten a virus so far.
Also the Bullshit about 5 different App Stores has never materialized.
"Maybe Apple has been losing money on the App Store infrastructure so they want to make it up" is a plausible theory, but there's no data to support it since mobile gacha/gambling apps pull in billions a year and Apple pockets 30% of it. Those games don't make particularly heavy use of Apple's infrastructure either, so I would guarantee that they are making a healthy profit every year on the store.
Even more succinctly if it were the case then the new offering wouldn't be limited to Europe and the old offering wouldn't be an option to retain going forward there either.
Apple considered the App Store commission to be compensation for the value delivered by the entire iOS developer ecosystem, not just the mechanical/infrastructure parts of the app distribution process. It was a pretty good setup: aside from the $100/year membership fee, the charges scaled with revenue, which in most cases is a good approximation for the value provided (there were some edge cases where that falls apart, like digital content purchases). Unlike, say Microsoft, they didn't charge $250/seat/year for their full-fat IDE. The also haven't charged licencing fees for the SDK, like is common in the video game space.
Device price is sufficient compensation for the value delivered by the entire iOS developer ecosystem.
If a user wants to specifically avoid this 'ecosystem' and have a direct relationship with the app developer, such user should be allowed to run the app without Apple's consent, permission or even knowing.
If Apple feels the price should be higher to justify the costs, they should raise the price.
If Apple is saying that they are selling a phone but do not give their customers full freedom to do whatever they want with the device, it is not sale, but lending, and Apple should come clean about it.
Come on that’s a lazy comeback. It’s obvious they have more Korean employees than Californian, I don’t need fact check. Having direct factory access (read: own) further reduces costs.
> 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.
Does anyone know if notarization is something you could turn off? If you can't, then I'm pretty sure the EU won't like this; obviously "malicious compliance."
I don't see how this isn't effectively an app store in itself. If Apple can forbid an app from running on user devices, then they need to approve every app that is installed. More importantly, they are effectively blackmailing developers to pay them "per install," which is only enforceable through the notarization process.
That sounds an awful lot like an app store.
I agree, the EU will not like this. Too bad it'll take another 3-5 years to fix.
I don't have any IOS devices, but I'm expecting maybe $50 (and I'm being generous) to come as a result of a similar lawsuit on Google over over-charging for IAPs.
This falls squarely under the exemptions for security reasons under article 6 sub 4 of the DMA.
> 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.
The "duly justified" might not be that far reaching. Sure, notarization seems like a valid cause, but there is no reason why it should be exclusively the provider of one specific app store who offers notarization. In particular, if it happens that it is more onerous or restrictive on non-Apple stores, that justification starts looking very shaky.
I think perhaps notarization is OK, for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles. What I think is very underhanded is charging per install for 'core services' rather than per app review. It's not like the app has to be notarized/reviewed for every install.
> for example you have to pass requirements to publish on other closed platforms like games consoles
But those would be the requirements of those platforms.
I can make and publish games for the Pico-8 console without any requirements. Could you imagine if Microsoft had the ability to veto any Pico-8 game I wanted to make?
The announcement indicates that notarization for iOS platforms will include human review. They are basically dividing the App Store review process in half, with the platform safety side (for all apps) and the content/quality side (only for App Store).
How else are they gonna obligate developers to pay the core fee then.
Once tooling catches up, in theory, developers don't have a contractual relationship with apple anymore, except to get notarized.
The devices belong to the users apple sold the hardware and licensed the software to them not app developers. They could charge the users but obviously this would be a terrible idea.
Getting notarized will either directly require payment of the platform fee or will force the use of the official tools which will mandate that.
Nonprofits, governments etc don’t have to pay a fee, so in effect it means we will have the AppStore, and a few free, open-source alternatives.
That is absolutely a win to the common people. And it’s not like other companies taken a hit - they can either stay on the AppStore and have their finances go through their “taxing”, or create an alternative store and find a proper monetizing strategy. They can calculate what makes sense, but it makes it hard for Facebook/google to exercise their network effect for creating a new app store at the expense of users.
The entire point of this legislation is to open up the Apple's mobile platforms to competition. It's not (supposed to be) a closed platform. With notarization requirements, third party app stores are just an extension of Apple's app store with a different logo!
Apple has a history of bad faith & malicious non-compliance, what they "think" is pretty much irrelevant at this point. We know what the spirit of the regulation is, and I trust that the EU regulators are interested in effecting those changes, otherwise what's the point of this entire ordeal if Apple only has to pay lip service to anti-trust intervention?
I am getting the same vibes from this as I did when Google was found guilty of abusing monopoly power. People lost their minds because “Apple is so much worse!” Never mind that the two lawsuits filed by Epic against Google and Apple were over different things and had different results because of it.
The DMA targeted different companies in different ways all under the rubric of combatting “gatekeeping.” They then went on to say how different companies were guilty of that crime in different ways. It would not surprise me at all if Apple has complied with what the EU singled Apple out for. It also wouldn’t surprise me if casual observers have conflated all the different flavors of gatekeeping that the DMA has directed at all companies.
Apple has probably calculated the risk of a legal challenge as 99%, the risk of losing it is 80%, but they expect a small/affordable penalty and at least a couple of years where they can hold onto their rent seeking in the iPhone space.
I'm well aware of how the notarization process works on macOS. I considered supporting it for an open source project I was working on, but I abandoned the macOS version after I realized that I would have to pay Apple's annual $100 fee.
Notarization could theoretically be used for "good", even though I strongly dispute its effectiveness. It only ensures that someone's card is on file to potentially aid in investigation after the damage has been done. In the case of malware, that card is likely to be stolen anyway.
The more likely option is that Apple will start abusing notarization as a way to take down apps it finds objectionable in some way, even though they do exactly what they say on the tin.
I guess as usual this will come down to porn. if those apps get rejected despite being non-malicious that shows how this "notarization" process truly is.
To be honest, it's not even like I care that much about the additional payment. Scummy but expected. It's more that the current prices, similar to Unity, seem to pretty much punish any innovative idea that takes off, to a point where Apple will not just make the product unproftiable but bankrupt the developer in the process. Most mobile apps are free so people underestimate how quickly you can hit 1M. At least make it something like $0.05 at a million and ramp it up at 5m or 10m to these larger prices. by 10m downloads you are much more likely a larger business or have figured out a way to properly scale your app.
oh and don't count updates, discouraging devs from maintaining their apps. Devs don't profit from an existing user updating, why should Apple?
While I don't disagree that the EU won't like it, I don't see this as malicious compliance. The only reason this hasn't been in iOS up until now was distribution was already restricted through the app store. There was already signing going on. This just moves the signing to being an explicit step because distributors won't be signing for the App Store.
Notarization has been enforced for all apps on the Mac for years. Would the DMA have an issue with requiring signed drivers? Seems a similar baseline. Personally I’m totally ok with that. I haven’t seen a single instance of them not notarizing something or revoking it for something that wasn’t actually malicious.
Gatekeeper/notarization are intended to stop malware, which Unreal Engine is not. Apple may well have a valid business dispute (over another application on another platform), but it's an abuse of the system and control they have to obstruct a Mac owner from running non-malware software on their own computer.
Luckily the court stopped them retaliating in this case, but it gives me reason to be concerned about expansion of the "it's Apple's device and will always act in Apple's interests over the owner's" mentality from iOS towards Mac desktops.
Anyone can sue over unlawful contract terms without needing to breach the contract.
The one finding in Epic’s favor was that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition law by preventing Epic from linking to an outside payment method.
Plenty of contracts include dubious and outright illegal things, depending on the jurisdiction. I'd say Apple is violating the public trust as they increasingly corner the market in apps and phones.
No, notarization can be turned off on the Mac in ~15 seconds. Open a Terminal and type `sudo spctl --master-disable`. Enter your password and press enter.
You can also right click an individual unnotarization .app bundle and select `open`, then affirm your intention in the scary warning prompt.
P.S. The Mac also lets you disable SIP, install unsigned kernel extensions, and rewrite kernel memory to your heart's content. This is admittedly a bit more involved.
Apple doesn't care about porn on iOS devices, they just don't want it in the App Store. Unless a PornHub app is full of malware, it shouldn't have any problem getting notarized.
>Through a combination of automated checks and human review, Notarization will help ensure apps are free of known malware, viruses, or other security threats, function as promised, and don’t expose users to egregious fraud.
I wouldn't be 100% confident there. I wouldn't be surprised if porn got through, but plenty of other companies have blocked such content under "security threats".
Does Apple charge Mac developers a price per notarization? Because it sounds like that's effectively what they're doing here with iOS developers, since they require notarization and also require a fee per install for distributing outside the app store.
It's a protection racket - pay us and we won't flag your app as malware.
It is in plans though.
I think EU should make alternative notarisation entities though, antivirus companies could do it.
If we care about "privacy and security" here.
Not really. It’s a condition. You can also choose the old rules.. you can also chose to not develop for iOS. There is no gun to your head if you don’t develop for iOS
But the "old rules" were explicitly deemed illegal. Is there a limit to your logic? What if Apple had set the per-installation fee to $50 instead of $0.50? Developers have a choice! If they don't want to pay $50 per installation, they can choose the old rules. There is no gun to their head.
Where is the line? Surely at some point, the choice is so unreasonable that Apple has effectively forced developers into "the old rules," thus circumventing compliance with the new rules, which may as well not exist if no developers can afford to play within them...
Develop for other OS-es. Don't develop for a platform you dislike and have so many issues with.
I never write code for Windows and actively tell any client I have to not use it if they want my product. If they don't want it so much - there are plenty of alternative. If they really want it - they will use the OS I write the app for.
You can install any app you want on the Mac, notarized or not. You might get some kind of warning, but that's irrelevant.
And Apple only allows certain kinds of apps through their notarization process. They can't have pornogrpahy, they can't allow things that could break copyright etc.
Apple and the EU have been discussing the implementation for some time so it seems extremely likely this has all been OKed already. In particular, I’m sure the issue of apps (FB app with a virus or spyware) on a random App Store is a concern to the EU.
Not defending Apple per se (they sure don’t need help) but going with the public statements of both Apple and the EU leading up to this.
“Officials from the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, have been holding meetings in recent months with Apple and other tech companies to discuss the new rules. Apple hasn’t provided a final package describing its solution to the commission or tested its plans with market participants.
Once it does, the commission will review the full package to look at whether it will make the market more open and contestable, and whether the company’s plans meet all the individual provisions of the law, according to a person familiar with its plans.”
If they actually okayed it, then I hope the EU reconsiders. In effect, Apple's tight grip on what apps you could run remains. I am also disappointed that those changes are EU-only, I hope most governments impose similar laws so that Apple just gives up and makes it global.
IMHO it seems like it's there only to enforce that "Core Technology Fee" and even then I don't buy that argument. Malware already slips through Apple's "strict" App Store review process.
Malware also slips through sandboxes and other security measures. That doesn‘t mean they are useless. App review and notarization helps a lot with security. But there will always be errors.
My concern mostly lies with "what will qualify as malware". When we think of malware we think of things the user would consider malware, i.e. the traditional use case of notarization. Is Apple thinking the same or is malware just apps that do things they don't like and haven't been otherwise forced to approve (e.g. like JIT is now allowed for browser engines)? Overall though I'm optimistic on it, just also cautious.
Sure, but if Apple assumes that any non-notarized app is malware, then they're not just preventing malware - they're requiring non-malware to notarize every install. And since this is coupled with a new policy where non-app store installs cost money, this means it will be enforced through the notarization mechanism.
It's not the notarization itself that's an issue, but the fact that it's also the enforcement mechanism for collecting fees per-install. It's basically a mafia protection racket where you need to pay Apple to say you're not malware.
I think in this case some antivirus companies from EU could do notarisation.
Of course, companies that have a good track record and would actually do the proper job. No need to depend on Apple to do it. We do not have a single SSL CA, for example.
The problem with disabling notarization, is that it's something any trojan-horse malware author would have a glossy slideshow walking you through doing as part of the install process for their "meet sexy singles in your area and double your money instantly!" app.
And then you'd run the app, and it wouldn't blow up your phone, but just be a bit disappointing and something you'd delete — but meanwhile, the app would have used some 0day exploit to get a foothold outside the app sandbox, and so now your phone would be a silent node in a botnet, able to be C&Ced to DDoS targets or act as a VPN for nefarious account registrations or so forth.
(Did you know that there are many such botnets made of Android devices? But none so far for iOS devices. There's a reason for that!)
---
If it's not clear, by the way, Apple's "notarization" is, under the covers, just plain-old code signing. Just like every modern consumer OS has for apps, regardless of whether you get them from an app store or from the web. So that the platform can protect users from obvious viruses by just revoking the code cert.
Mind you, notarization is code-signing that requires you to submit your binary to Apple... but it's my understanding that this notarization still operates in two phases — a quick, synchronous phase, and a slower, asynchronous phase — and that the synchronous checks in the notarization process, before you get your cert signed, are only checks against the known signatures of various exploit techniques. (Again, just like every other consumer OS comes up with some way to get done — whether that be through required submission at signing time, or by submission of novel software by virus scanners that find the software on your disk, or even by web browsers as they download the software. Just try to develop Windows software, on Windows, without implicitly submitting binary "samples" to Microsoft through some route or another. It's very hard!)
Apple is somewhat unique among platforms, in having certain other virus-signature like patterns that their notarization backend takes note of, that won't trigger synchronous rejection, but rather will trigger Apple employees to do an async review of the application. (AFAIK, when this happens, you still get your app's cert signed right away; the cert might just get blacklisted some time later, if it turns out under closer human scrutiny that you were in fact doing something malicious.)
It is my understanding that the things Apple flags for human investigation, consist of use of certain system framework calls, that only very powerful and low-level system software should be doing — think, the sorts of calls unique to Virtual Machine hypervisor software, or to third-party file-system driver software. Rootkit code-smells, in other words.
Note that none of this is about what your app does for the user. Apple's notarization system — as Gatekeeper on macOS, or as part of Enterprise MDM iOS app deployment — has never suppressed or censored any app due to its nature. It's only about what it's doing that it's not supposed to be doing "according to what's on the tin." Apple is doing the same thing through notarization that the FDA does to foods and drugs: holding companies to their claims of their products being fit-for-purpose and non-adulterated.
(And although this is currently entirely a thing Apple is simply trusted to do in good faith, there's nothing stopping the EU from mandating that Apple's notarization going forward, consist of exactly these kind of technical checks and no more. I think that'd be a great idea, personally.)
>To qualify for the entitlement, your app must: Be available on iOS in the European Union only
kicking and screaming. i mean, yes, that is "complying". but it is ridiculous. and, am i getting this right, just gonna create a bunch of "[browser name] EU Edition" apps, which is just gonna be wonderful. users can look forward to having something like Chrome (International) and Chrome EU (limited EU edition) be installed side by side, i guess. can we look forward to "[browser name] [country name] edition" per each country that'd fancy to have itself some regulation similar to that? that'd be so many browsers! dozens, hundreds! what an optimal solution.
That's one way to bring the number of installs per app below Apple's arbitrary threshold so perhaps app devs and publishers will start doing that regardless. Good luck picking out the legit one among the clones. Apple may have a point about this being a security issue but only due to their hostile implementation.
I assume if you built an EU version of an app with, for example, your own browser engine then you wouldn't make the other "International" version available. What would be the point?
Last time I checked (~7 years ago) they didn't even share reviews between regions.
It was infuriating in Iceland where for obvious reasons all but the most popular apps had less than 5 reviews.
Of note is that starting a marketplace takes a stand-by letter of credit of €1,000,000 [0], so no getting around the core technology free by just starting a bunch of marketplaces.
According to the docs, an NGO has special fee waiver of they want to, but then all apps they distribute must also be of fee-waived organizations like NGOs. So there could be a marketplace of just NGO apps with 0€ fee.
In the EU, on iPhone only.
> Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party web browser — other than Safari — as their default. Reflecting the DMA’s requirements, Apple is also introducing a new choice screen that will surface when users first open Safari in iOS 17.4 or later. That screen will prompt EU users to choose a default browser from a list of options.
Any idea if this means you can actually choose a different browser, or are you choosing a different WebKit wrapper (e.g. the current version of Chrome on iOS)?
> To reflect the DMA’s changes, developers will be able to use alternative browser engines — other than WebKit — for dedicated browser apps and apps providing in-app browsing experiences in the EU.
So now European users could be using Firefox with mobile gecko engine, but no one in the US will ever test with that because they're not allowed to have it. Fun!
AFAIK, from various interactions I’ve had on here and on Lobsters, Big Tech developers seem to often have Firefox as a target. But people in startups don’t.
And European users will have 3000 instances of Chrome now that every app is going to bundle it. I'm all for alternate rendering engines but without giving users a choice the bloat is going to be massive. I don't trust developers to not be bloating their apps and I can almost guarantee we'll see custom versions of Chrome to enhance dev tracking capability on users.
I don't expect many EU apps to bundle Chrome because they can't use it outside the EU and the benefits of bundling a different browser engine for in-app browsing would be limited for the types of basic browsing that is typically done inside a non-browser app. Additionally, Apple is imposing additional requirements on apps that embed alternative browser engines, including requiring apps to be updated within 15 business days of a browser engine update and requiring the app to only be available in the EU.
As a result, I would expect Chrome/Firefox/Edge/Opera to ship their own browser engines on iOS but am doubtful that many other apps will embed Chromium/Gecko with the possible exception of apps that only operate in the EU.
You don't need custom versions for Chrome for tracking. Plenty of apps force links to open in-app, inject JS and then you have to make a few additional taps to get it to open in untampered Safari
Apples rules make it clear you can't bundle Chrome. Your alternate browser has to be fundamentally a browser, not something else that happens to have a browser as an extra feature
Can’t speak for other Fanboys™ but I have to help my in-laws with their Pixels weekly, which also happens to coincide with the one time a week I want to blow my brains out.
Luckily I’m extremely close to having them inducted into the fruit cult just by having them play around on my dev iPhone when I’m not working.
So fingers crossed it happens before get pushed over the edge.
As an aside: what kind of OS allows apps to create read-only contacts in the Contacts app, ffs…
My comment will seem a bit rude, but do all of you guys just have idiots for inlaws? My parents are in their 70s now and are by no stretch of the imagination technical in any way, yet I've literally never had to help untangle them like I see people talk about here constantly. Hell, my 97 year old grandpa uses his ancient android phone just fine, what on earth are people doing out there?
Firefox mobile extensions on mobile was basically a graveyard during their mobile overhaul. But it sounds like they are slowly making it easier to support mobile extensions with a metaphorical (or maybe literal) push of a button.
> actually choose a different browser, or are you choosing a different WebKit wrapper
I understand the "WebKit wrapper" for iOS criticism and do want different rendering engines available (e.g. Firefox's) and yet...
The worse thing about Firefox for iOS is the wrapper part, not the lack of rendering engine choice part. The UI of Firefox on iOS is inconsistent and buggy, and syncing doesn't sync well, etc. I doubt using FF's own rendering engine instead of WebKit would help the situation, as it'd drain engineering resources away from making the "wrapper" more usable.
I've always used Firefox, on Mac, Linux, Windows, Android, everywhere I can, but I find myself using it less and less on iOS... and it's not because of the rendering engine!
But since this change for the DMA will allow FF to use its own rendering engine (in the EU), hopefully maybe it'll reenergize the development of FF and improve the "wrapper" part more - even for non EU users!
Writing this on FF for iOS, the biggest reason I want to use the Firefox engine is for Firefox extensions. WebKit doesn't support extensions except the App Store ones in Safari, I want to use traditional extensions from AMO. Just let me use uBlock on my phone!
I do agree, the Firefox iOS UI is clunky, but I find it useful for stuff where I want to sync passwords or tabs. I use Safari for browsing the web casually because it's nicer, and the feature of swiping between tabs is so convenient.
Just to correct the common misconception. It is browser vendors that need to build web extension API support on top of WebKit. Orion browser [1] did this both for macOS and iOS . The support is still in beta and improving with each new release. iOS support remains limited to what is possible to achieve with a JS wrapper. Nothing prevents Firefox from doing the same and offer at least partial web extension support on iOS.
WebKit does support the same extension API as Firefox - it’s an open standard. How you install them, bundled in a native app from the App Store, is the annoying clunky part.
WebKit does not support blocking Web Request, which is what uBlock Origin uses (See compatibility matrix at the bottom of https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...)
In fact, it is all about blocking Web Request, not say, Manifest V2 vs Manifest V3 (Firefox supports MV3 but adds blocking Web Request support.)
> Apple is giving app developers in the EU access to NFC and allowing for alternative browser engines, so WebKit will not be required for third-party browser apps. Apps will be able to offer NFC payments without using Apple Pay or the Wallet app through Host Card Emulation. Apps can also access field detect, and a default app can be set to activate when an iPhone is placed near a terminal.
Although this only changes things for us developers. Regular users really don’t care what browser is running the web pages they’re looking at, everyone who downloads chrome does so to get their synced bookmarks and history.
> Regular users really don’t care what browser is running the web pages they’re looking at, everyone who downloads chrome does so to get their synced bookmarks and history.
This is ahistorical. Regular users switched to Firefox and Chrome in droves from IE. And it wasn’t to sync their bookmarks. It was because they provided a much better experience.
If Blink or Gecko are able to provide a better experience than WebKit on iOS that would certainly prompt many users to switch to browsers using those engines.
Seems unlikely given that out in the free world we’ve seen a consolidation around Chromium. The web is mature enough at this point that the choice of browser engine mostly isn’t a differentiating factor.
You're missing the point. People can feel that a twin turbo inline 6 drives much smoother and more powerfully than a 1.3L 4 banger even if they don't know the first thing about what's under the bonnet. The engine changes the entire experience.
And most people don't care at all what's under the bonnet.
They want something that reliably gets them from A to B and back, with occasional side trips to C, D and E. They want something that does that in a way that matches their personal style. They want something that isn't going to cost them an arm and a leg to run.
Forty, fifty, and sixty years ago people cared a lot more. Starting really in the mid-90s, that changed. Nowadays, there are probably as many gearheads as there were decades ago, but as a population they represent a smaller percentage. And there's a tiny percentage of people who care only so that they can mod their engines to run less efficiently so they can pwn the libz.
Inasmuch as people do care about the 1.3 4 banger — they choose it because it generally runs more reliably over time with fewer litres burned per 100km.
I think you're wrong: people who buy a shitty second-hand car to go to work and have little money to spare on it: indeed, really 0 interest in the car as long as it runs long enough to generate profit to break even.
But if you are going to spend 10k$+ on a car, then you start caring, A LOT. I've seen the change from when I was a student willing to take any crap on wheel, vs when I had some money to burn on a car and I spent weeks looking at everything to end up buying a 10k$ 20yo Porsche 911 :D See, I didn't even look at the fuel cost: only the engine perf per dollars. And it cost me an arm and a leg to run, in Hong Kong where the fuel cost is the highest in the world !
People don't work as rational machines balancing perfectly cost and profit in a constant manner over time. It's more a constraint compromise game with a repressed desire for luxury that seem to drive us: you'll buy what you can afford and within those boundaries you will choose comfort and design over economic optimization. Like when people buy an iphone, evidently they didn't look at all about cost for performance and choose something economically suboptimal but luxurious.
Accept it and you'll start liking them more I think.
I said: “They want something that reliably gets them from A to B and back, with occasional side trips to C, D and E. They want something that does that in a way that matches their personal style. They want something that isn't going to cost them an arm and a leg to run.”
I did indicate that personal style comes into it, and I don't think that it's not an emotional decision. But there's a reason that Camry, Corolla, and Accord show up in bestselling car lists every year (and similar models elsewhere in the world), and it has nothing to do with "caring about what's under the bonnet".
There is a subset of people who do care about the engine, but they don't do so because they actually know a damned thing about how the engine runs, but because a big engine makes them feel powerful in their oversized pickemup trucks that never carry a load in the bed.
Your assertion that people who buy an iPhone aren't looking at cost for performance is partially correct, but only insofar as most (I mean > 99% of people including people in tech—including myself) wouldn't be able to objectively measure phone performance worth a damn. Anecdotally, I know a number of people who have switched from android devices to iPhones because they see their friends holding onto the same iPhones for years without complaints, yet they can't see the benefit of holding onto their android phones and realize that they may be spending a bit more up front, but are getting more possible useful years of phone updates than had been available in Android until promises made (and several years to see if they are kept) just few months ago.
Yes, I also know people who are enamoured of their Android devices and have their own smugness about what they think that they've gotten over the "sheeple" who buy Apple devices, but most people really don't give a shit about the phone operating system any more than they do about whether the engine in their car is 3, 4 or 6 cylinders (people who by v8s are intentionally buying a v8) or whether it happens to just be a family of hamsters running around underneath—as long as it runs.
If you do not see those statements as complementary, that is on you, not on me.
Most people who buy cars don't actually give a shit how many cylinders, spark plug configuration, or hamsters are involved in the engine. They want to know that it will work and not cost them too much in fuel, maintenance, insurance, and repairs. They want it to "look good" for their sense of style, and they want it to be a "safe" car.
In order, it's usually price, style, then fuel efficiency (not engine, but whole car fuel efficiency), insurance cost, and everything else. For some people, it ends up being style, price, then everything else.
i still think the claim regular car users don't really care about the engine specs holds true ... you'd be hard pressed if you can tell the difference between an inline 4 and v6 these days tho (apart from how many more times you are hitting the gas station; some inline 4s even perform better than v6s)
That's exactly what I predicted for NFC when Apple announced Apple Pay. Apple kept developers from using any of the NFC APIs until they were ready to roll out Apple Pay, and then only allowed non-payment NFC after that. It gave them 10 years to establish Apple Pay.
Being the system default was obviously very convenient for customers and there would be a very high bar for any other payment app to compete, but Apple wanted to make absolutely sure there was no possible competition.
> Regular users really don’t care what browser is running the web pages they’re looking at, everyone who downloads chrome does so to get their synced bookmarks and history.
Well first version it will be different WebKit wrappers, as they are the only option available on iOS right now.
But they simultaneously open the door to other browser engines, so I imagine Firefox at least will release their app with a new browser engine down the line.
It does, but on closer reading looks restricted to EU, they certainly aren’t suggesting a , say, gecko based browser could be published globally outside the EU.
"New frameworks and APIs for alternative browser engines — enabling developers to use browser engines, other than WebKit, for browser apps and apps with in-app browsing experiences."
The reason for apple doing something is not that it wants its users to be safe or to protect them. It just wants to make more money by preventing other companies from doing stuff on its phones. This is it. If it would be possible then it would ask for 50 or 79% of sales on the app store, if it could it would take a % of every transaction done in Safari
This is so unbelievably weird to me. Apple is a multi-trillion(!) dollar corporation whose sole purpose is to generate profit and increase it YoY. Yet people are acting like scary government bureaucrats are trying to persecute their best friend. Some of the comments on places like the macrumors forums feel like people trying to defend a cult.
Apple has unfortunately replaced religion in certain market segments. At this point Apple could just drain everyone's Apple Pay cards and there still would be a vocal group of people arguing that they're doing everyone a public service by educating them about the dangers of shopping online.
I don’t like the idea of having N different app stores no matter how bad the one App Store is. Just having one App Store and no silly monetization rules would be great.
I download the Netflix app for $0 and my business with Netflix is done directly with them after that. And Netflix can pay Apple some reasonable fee for hosting and reviewing the apps themselves.
Apple have already lost the AppStore they just haven’t realized it yet. They should try to rescue the 1 good store before the app market is fractured with side markets. Eventually it’ll affect the perception of their hardware and that’s a worse place for Apple than just losing the entire app tax.
I really like the user experience of the app store as it is. I love that I can cancel any app subscription from 1 place. I understand some of the problems of the app store from the developer side and hope those change, but I like how it is as a user.
I do wish progressive web apps were improved a bit.
I see the "app subscription in 1 place" point a lot, but what stops you from only ever enforcing that rule by yourself, as you're already doing now ?
I assume that means you currently don't subscribe to anything Amazon provides, nor Netflix, nor game services, nor newsletters, nor coffee subscriptions etc.
A few more subscription mechanisms appearing in the world would not make a difference, do they ? I anything you'd have more option to choose which basket you put all your eggs in.
What's wrong with cancelling Amazon Prime? I did it recently and it took less than a minute. I even had the option to cancel immediately and have them refund my money, even though my yearly subscription was still running for half a year, which AFAIK is not possible for App Store subscriptions. I'm in EU so might be different to US.
No it's not. They still let you jump through a bunch of hoops and try to trick you. Have you ever cancelled something on the app store? It's really just a cancel button.
Maybe we should expand it then? Make a rule that all subscription services shall to use Apple's iStore – it is after all the simplest possible way.
I have not cancelled anything on the Apple store, no. I have not yet had the burden of owning an iPhone, but I have cancelled a lot of things elsewhere. And the only situations where it has been anxiety provoking has been for US companies.
That's true! In Germany there's the law that you need to be able to cancel a subscription the same way you created it. So if I click a button, you can't ask me to call you. But it's circumvented, and you're right, internationally it's so much worse. And they call it "customer retention" lol
If they’re like me, they subscribe to those through the various apps from the app store, such that Apple is the processor for them. It means paying more typically, but it’s worth it for me to have as many of my subs as possible in one place, easy to cancel and easy to resubscribe.
I chose examples that I basically don't see in the App Store. I have a NIntendo Online subscription and an Amazon unlimited subscription, and don't expect it will ever be integrated.
If you subscribe to a service from your phone, it does show up there. My MLB subscription is also usable from my computer, but because I bought it on my phone it’s manageable there.
Presumably if they decided to move that app to a 3rd party store exclusively, that goes away
> I assume that means you currently don't subscribe to anything Amazon provides, nor Netflix, nor game services, nor newsletters, nor coffee subscriptions etc.
I subscribe to all of these through apple and that means I can cancel them in the settings app on my phone instantly.
I'm not sure! If I have the same cancel-any-subscription-from-ios-settings experience without the app store, then I would love that! I'd love it if I could cancel other things like spotify/netflix from that same ios settings screen.
What is even better is that I can use prepaid Visa cards to subscribe to things via Apple Pay in the App Store for the very same apps that will not allow me to do it on their website
I think it would be a much better UX for 90% of users. But it would require the store to exist from the start so it contains all/most of the content. That never happened on windows.
a bit of a silly comment. a PC is not a phone. a phone is something very personal, something you can lose very easily (and a lot of people do), something that you use all the time outside your home (on the street, on the bus, etc). a PC isn't that.
You could totally have one app store to rule them all (front end \neq repos).
Also, this whole "fractured with side markets" sounds massively overblown.
On the android side other app stores are allowed. Yet, almost nobody goes out of their way to add any app store that was not preinstalled.
And those preinstalled at most include one by the phone manufacturer, i.e. apple in this case.
The EU is luckily different from the US in terms of following the spirit of laws rather than using technical loopholes. Hopefully any attempt to be in malicious compliance should result in the same penalty as noncompliance.
The new alternative business terms basically set that up. The "reasonable fee" is €0.50/install plus 10% of recurring revenue for customers acquired through via the Apple App Store.
The reasonable fee if you ask me would be only to cover their own cost. So the same fee for Spotify and Netflix as for my own combined Todo/flappy bird clone app.
N should just be 0. Why have an app store middle man at all? You could just download your Netflix app from Netflix's website. Problem solved.
When you look up a program on Google search, you pretty much always get the right result. When you search for something on an app store, you get a bunch of spam mixed in. It's a worse experience.
> When you look up a program on Google search, you pretty much always get the right result
This is dangerously untrue for many categories of app. Google plays a game of whack-a-mole trying to stop the worst malware but it’s far from perfect and once you’re in more dubious categories like adware they pretty don’t bother.
That’s the problem here: it’d be nice to be able to install Netflix from Netflix.com but making it that easy means that millions of people will get something with bundled adware, spyware, etc. because they didn’t realize what they were installing - or because it wasn’t installed by them but their controlling spouse, kid who likes games, etc. The long-term answer for this will involve better OS sandboxes but as we’ve seen that’s a tough thing to get right and will inevitably limit what people can do or be abused (e.g. taking away direct access to other applications means attackers now try to convince people to enable assistive features).
Now, maybe that freedom is worth the risk. Personally I think it is but I also know that statistically the rate of people I know/support getting their credit cards stolen, being used in a botnet, or having their PC become unusable dropped to zero when those people switched to iOS or ChromeOS so I certainly can’t say there isn’t a solid argument that the general public cannot use general purpose computers safely.
> The long-term answer for this will involve better OS sandboxes
Well, this is exactly it. iOS should have redundant security policies that don't take fallible App Store reviews for granted anyways. Apple didn't really account for this, presumably to hedge the validity of a single App Store. Now they're acting like the victim when they gave up proactive solutions to chase more money. I can't empathize with that logic, even if they drag users into the regulatory bear trap with them.
Apple has every opportunity to make things right. Sideloading works fine on Android (or, Mac); getting it "right" is eminently an implementation problem. It would be incredibly sad for Apple to fight down this legislation through bad faith compliance and self-sabotage. Not unexpected or poor entertainment, but very sad and unnecessary.
> Well, this is exactly it. iOS should have redundant security policies that don't take fallible App Store reviews for granted anyways. Apple didn't really account for this, presumably to hedge the validity of a single App Store.
If your second sentence was accurate, Apple wouldn’t be leading the industry on app security as they have been. The mistake is seeing these as incompatible rather than complementary goals: the layers of protection on the device ate never going to be perfect so having a single point of review and, more importantly, revocation means that they have a chance to catch exploits first and to deter them with knowledge of what can be done in response. The notarization framework they describe seems like a compromise in that regard, being especially useful for linking binaries to a legal identity.
> Sideloading works fine on Android (or, Mac); getting it "right" is eminently an implementation problem.
Again, this depends on whether your definition of “right” includes as much malware or spyware. That’s a spectrum, and there is not an absolute right answer. Apple appears to be shifting to a model where multiple stores are allowed but there’s still some accountability for stores which don’t control malware, which seems like a better place to me than where we’re at now.
> If your second sentence was accurate, Apple wouldn’t be leading the industry on app security as they have been.
If Apple was actually leading the industry on App Security then they wouldn't be using the App Store as a security defense. They know that people are afraid of Pegasus-style malware and they want people to think it comes only from third-parties. In reality, Apple devices are already attacked from a variety of endpoints, many of which are first-party. Some of them are zero-click. Blaming malware and scamming on sideloading is an obvious stretch; both of those things exist on iPhone even without the DMA.
> The mistake is seeing these as incompatible rather than complementary goals
I do see them as complimentary; that's why I'm outraged that only one half of the goal is considered. Apple actively neglects security on their device to reinforce the validity of a centralized App Store. That is an objectively deteriorated experience for users, and when stuff like the Digital Market Act comes around it's a blatant ploy to buy Apple time.
I'm not denying the merits of your discussion, I'm proving that other platforms (including Apple-made ones) already get this right, so regulators have no reason to go let Apple off easy here. The status-quo can be better, and I guarantee you that this policy will be revised within the year. There is simply no excuse.
As the original comment states, there's not magic sandbox solution. It's a hard problem.
The average user should be able to grant or deny capabilities.
For things like location it's easy but when you think about the botnet case, things get tricky. What ip ranges do you allow?
There's no way to fix the problem natively, either. Apple's "solution" to this issue is checking every app personally, which is a fallible and expensive approach. Apple will pretend they're taking the high road, but it doesn't take a genius to surmise they only care about that process because it's expensive.
No matter how you slice it, this is already a problem and literally no one blames Apple for it. It's not Apple's job to blacklist phone numbers that contain scam callers, it's not Apple's job to protect Safari users from content that harms them. The EU is very unlikely to approve any scheme where Apple is still a gatekeeping party.
> 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.
This seems unusually high. I would expect that a large number of apps meet this threshold.
Am I correct in thinking this applies to apps that aren't monetized?
So apple wants to require they approve your app and then charge you €0,5 for every time it is installed for the privilege of avoiding using their infrastructure. It is honestly insane. I don't know the DMA in detail but I hope it is not and gets smacked with fines. And I hope if this is allowed the DMA gets updated so this is no longer allowed.
Yeah well you are benefiting for Apple’s hardware and software so you need to pay. Can’t be a free-loaded just because you want to earn that extra bit of money while increasing the attack vector for the end user.
Apple defenders keep approaching these conversations like, "okay, you think you want to actually own your phone, but have you considered that sideloading would be just like <insert other awesome thing>?"
Nobody likes the pre-bundled garbage smart TV system; TVs where you can install arbitrary apps and use the same remote to operate them would be a better experience. As TVs have gotten more universal standards and APIs that any device can hook into, they've gotten better. We're all glad that TVs have arbitrary HDMI in, we like being able to use any game console with our TVs without needing to care about whether the console manufacturer has an agreement with the TV manufacturer, we don't like when we get a TV home and figure out it doesn't work with a service we already own.
"Apple is like those 'smart' TVs you buy where you get home and discover that for some bullcrap reason Youtube doesn't work and your home assistant can't control the volume" -- may not be the strong defense of Apple you think it is?
Do the people making these comparisons not understand that the comparisons all sound really good? It's like, "do you expect to be able to install any app on a console? Do you expect your smart phone hub to be able to work with any smart device? Or what, you buy an e-reader and expect to be able to just put any book on it?"
Yes, I do. I don't know, don't threaten me with a good time.
At least the security arguments make some sense, even an argument that Apple has some special right to profit off of "access to the users" is more defendable. But I feel sometimes like Apple apologists are living in an alternate world where they think that if Microsoft launched a console that could play both Xbox and PS5 games that consumers would all be saying, "we don't want that, that feature makes the Xbox worse."
Why do you have the expectation to install whatever you want on a smart TV? Just because there is a computer chip inside it?
I find it somewhat absurd that if you put a computer chip inside of a gadget you are now suddenly expected to support/enable installing literally anything.
If the consumer cares so much about that, they can buy something else.
> Just because there is a computer chip inside it?
Sort of, yes? I mean, if you've got a general purpose computing device stuck inside of a TV, it's kind of nice to be able to use it as a general purpose computing device.
And I mean, we have open standards for things. I'm not saying that companies should have to manually support everything, but if you ask me if it's a desirable feature or if it would be better for TVs to use common platforms that can be targeted regardless of hardware, what do you want me to say? That it's a bad thing if I can control the volume on my TV using a universal remote? That it's good that different smart assistants don't work with the same music services? Because having a smart assistant say that you can't use a music service because some CEOs got into a fight with each other actually stinks and I hate that.
> I find it somewhat absurd that if you put a computer chip inside of a gadget you are now suddenly expected to support/enable installing literally anything.
Okay, but you understand that every consumer would view that as a feature, right? You understand that when you say, "imagine if every app worked on your TV" pretty much everyone is going to say, "that sounds great, yes please."
Never before has any console or TV ever advertised less compatibility as if that is a desirable feature that customers should want. Never before has Microsoft gotten up on stage and said "we have a hundred launch titles" and then Playstation gotten on stage and said "hah, that's amateur talk, we have 45 launch titles, we're clearly winning this fight."
You're arguing that this is a slippery slope, but you're also arguing that there's chocolate cake and puppies at the bottom of the slope. Generally speaking, using cross-compatible standards that allow people to interop with devices without asking the manufacturer's permission is a thing that I want, yes. I like that cars use the CAN-BUS standard, that's a good regulation. I like that I can have 3rd-party repair shops for my car, I like that I can buy a stereo system and hook it up and it doesn't matter if the stereo manufacturer has an agreement with Toyota. I like that Samsung and LG TVs both use HDMI ports and I don't have to ask "which computers can I plug into this" when I buy a TV. And of course consumers generally like that we use universal USB standards now and we've gotten past every device having incompatible cords. These are all great things to have.
You can argue whatever you want, you can argue that this is an abridgement of Apple's rights. People might believe that.
But just be aware that your slippery slope sounds less like a slippery slope and more like some kind of prize, and if you're not careful people might start to say, "wait, you're saying that if we open up iOS devices we could then do the same thing to consoles, and I would stop needing to buy 3 separate consoles just to play different games? And I could buy cheap controllers instead of needing to spend 60-80 dollars for an official one? And I could play games with people who are on different consoles? So where do I sign up for that?"
Looking at Unity wanting to charge 20 cents and the game development industry falling over itself to explain how that will never ever work for them... I dunno, maybe other app types (firefox, a mastodon client, osmand, local public transport.. looking at random examples from my homescreen) make enough money from their users and this will be doable for them when microtransaction-laden games couldn't make 2/5ths of that price work out
Unity wanted to charge for every single "install", where that category was defined so broadly that even loading the game in a web browser was an "install", and someone downloading and deleting and downloading the app over and over on a device was also repeated "installs".
Here Apple is tracking an install across the entire user account per year, so even if you have tons of devices and install the app on every single one of them, that's still just one "install".
Unity kept revising it over and over again so these two got removed IIRC:
> that even loading the game in a web browser was an "install", and someone downloading and deleting and downloading the app over and over on a device was also repeated "installs".
Free apps aren’t exempt. The fee is only for EU users. If you take the EU iOS market share of 33.3% [1] and the number of EU citizens (448 million) [2], you get ~150 million — and that’s assuming 1 smartphone/citizen, which is probably too much.
> that’s assuming 1 smartphone/citizen, which is probably too much.
sure kids <5 years old probably don't own smart devices. But many those EU citizens will own also ipad, apple watch and probably some older devices that they use from time to time (as a backup)
Non-iPhone installs don’t count. Installs outside the EU don’t count either.
It’s only first unique install in a 12 month period on iPhones in the EU and then only the ones that are above 1M that are charged €0.50 in monthly installments.
ok maybe iPad and apple watch doesn't count but still multiple iPhones belonging to the same user counts as separate install. And it's not only unique first install:
"A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store," [0]
so updates and reinstalls count as well - just all installs, reinstalls, updates in 12 month period counts as one. But next year if you just make a bug fix to still support new iOS version that update will be paid as well to all your user install base.
> Am I correct in thinking this applies to apps that aren't monetized?
You are correct according to their calculator [0]. If I say I have 2M annual installs (1M over the "free tier") and no in-app purchase it will cost $45,290/mo
Hi, bad person here, happily building apps for their devices.
They missed out on €0 because government entities, non-profits and educational institutions are exempt from the install fee.
Alternatively you can also just stick with the App Store and pay 15%/30% over revenue without install fee, which would also be €0 in your hypothetical.
This counts one install per 12 month period, whether update or fresh install (new user). So it’s €0.50 per user device. For application providers that opt into the new terms and release updates every two weeks like clockwork even if there are no meaningful updates for 300Mb application bundles (Facebook, Duolingo, a few others)…this is likely a fair cost (and my suspicion is that yes, there's a premium, but it's probably not Apple's usual 20%+ premium on products since many applications would not be subject to this fee at all, even under the new terms).
It is not per update and the most significant thing is that it is also for apps that get distributed outside the app store. Which is the real issue and that is definitely insane
> A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, and/or a custom app.
That's what I wanna know. How do I build an XCode project completely offline, not signed into my Apple ID on anything, not paying the 99 USD fee and just AirDrop it to my phone or whatever. I am hoping DMA brings this ability and lets me make personal apps just for myself. Reading this gave me the impression Apple Apple is complying in ways which might not give me this ability. I remain confused as to what the actual status of this is.
Same because if sideloaded apps require this notarization that negates the whole point sideloading. Notarization still requires apple to review the app from reading the post by apple. If they don't like the app they can refuse to notarize it defeating the whole purpose of sideloading. This still allows apple to decide what apps can and can't be installed on devices they do not own!!! IF this turns out to be the case.
Also you should be able run unsigned code on hardware you own if you want. One tenant of property ownership is the right of exclusion. Normally you would be able to choose what software to run or not run, but in this instance apple also has a say they can say nope not that.
Here is the rub, normally when you sell something all rights are transferred, by the sale. If you wished to reserve rights it generally would require a contract/lease ect... However, apple here is using cryptography to effectively reserve the right of exclusion regarding what software can and can not run on that ARM core. The problem is you can go right now buy a iPhone and without even opening the box and agreeing to anything Apple has effectively already kept that right from you. Let me explain.
Let's say you did not want to use any of Apples software and install Linux on your phone. Apple still has the keys to the boot-ROM. The hardware will not boot any code not signed by apple. Here's the rub apple sold you the device which should have transferred all rights of that device. However, even after that sale Apple is maintaining the right to exclude software from executing on hardware they no longer own. This should be illegal, but they get away with some how probably because most people don't understand fully what's going on here.
Simply put apple is infringing on peoples personal property rights. In particular the right of exclusion, and Apple are effectively reserving that right by using cryptography after they sell the device.
you already could in a way... by using altstore[0] on non jailbroken devices... It's not as straightforward as on Android but it is possible (there were even some builds of blink engine)
Why don't mac apps have a "Core Technology Fee", just think these things fall completely apart when they have a whole platform sitting there without these things.
Of course. If Apple stopped supporting app installation from other sources than App Store on Mac, I am sure lots of customers would leave the platform.
Developing and installing apps is the main feature of a computer. Apple emerged from this, from BSD and UNIX background, they are still using mostly Linux servers, yet they are taking this away from their users and force them into their "secure" stores which they control fully.
EU should fight this and if Apple doesn't want to complain, they should leave EU market. There will also be less electronic waste in the end...
> Developing and installing apps is the main feature of a computer.
I may argue that policing the App store is the main feature of the iPhone. That is why I bought it in the first place. It is not a computer in general sense. I want only a few apps and I want them to behave.
It is still pretty general-purpose computer and many people spend fair amount of time working with it, browsing web, reading emails, spreadsheets, ...
I find it hard to believe you bought the iPhone because of Apple's store "policing". This is what they want you to believe.
In reality there are sandboxing mechanisms and permission systems in place and no store "policing" is necessary. That's why android isn't less secure and that's why unless your android is not rooted you can use banking, google wallet and other security-sensitive apps and watch DRM-protected videos there as well.
You almost feel bad for the MBAs that had to come up with this sad meme. On the other hand, I'm pretty punch-drunk reading all this and wouldn't mind a few more months of corporate backpedaling. HN tends to make a good spectacle out of it.
“A certain amount of killing has always been an arm of business,” the Baron said, “but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Someone must be left to work the spice.”
That really is the elephant in the room IMO.
How can it be so terrible from a security perspective on one platform and ok on another one?
Is my laptop really that different from my phone?
People may have different usage but they both contain sensitive data and are meant to be used in public places.
We just operate one with a touch screen and the other with a keyboard + track pad.
The argument is a phone is a critical tool, an issue affecting your phone is much more dangerous because you may need to use your phone in an emergency. That is Apple's argument for why ios and macos are different.
That makes sense.
I'll also grant that one of the most effective security measure is to deny by default and only allow stuff explicitly (with a single, controlled app store in this case).
Personally I think the reasons for those security measure are not worth the freedom limitations and I guess that's why I've never been a fan of the apple ecosystem.
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.
While it will be nice to ship hobbyist apps through a third party channel, it will only be a matter of time until app users are bullied into installing third party stores. For the normal user it's less of a "choice" than it is for the technical user. The average user wants to play games on their phone and will submit to any breaches of privacy in order to do so. These average users are the parents, siblings, and children of most technical users. The average app is spyware even on the App Store and I only see it getting worse with these loosened restrictions.
That said the content on the App Store is already pretty bad privacy-wise, this is more of a money issue and whether Apple deserves to get paid for their role as an app channel.
The only way to play Fortnite on Android is by installing the Epic Games app directly from their website. That’s many millions of users who’ve already had to install a third party store to play a popular game.
And yet enough people do it to the point that Android makes up more than 50% of all infected devices by virtue of Trojanized banking apps and the like being distributed via third party stores.
Why is it "user choice" when someone rants against using a certain store or streaming service, but "bullying" when a developer chooses to host their apps somewhere other than [majority mindshare holder]?
It goes both ways. Someone can choose to host an app I value outside of the App store, and I can choose to ignore it. The app may get along fine enough without me, or it will relent and come back. That's just business. And if it's hosted on an alternative store because Apple kicked it off the App Store, that's on Apple.
It doesn't exactly go both ways, if Meta puts WhatsApp into their own app store, as a european user you might be very well bullied into allowing even more Meta spyware onto your device.
If a developer has such a significant user base you don't have a choice. Same with banking apps: If there are no alternatives that allow you to not use a platform (in this case iOS/Android) you are bullied as you have no choice to not do business with them.
Most of my EU friends would absolutely never install a separate Meta store to install WhatsApp, they'd just switch to Signal or Telegram, which lots and lots of people have been doing of late.
I mean, there's nothing stopping Zucc from doing this right now on android, yet they don't.
Im not so sure, with enough incentive (in terms of exclusive features) and a slow roll-out (i.e. WhatsApp continues to exist on existing stores) it might very well happen.
> To help keep users safe online, Apple will only authorize developers to implement alternative browser engines after meeting specific criteria and committing to a number of ongoing privacy and security requirements, including timely security updates to address emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
This criteria seems arbitrary. Doesn't this allow Apple to arbitrarily prevent competitor engines like Blink and Gecko?
Browsers that bring their own javascript engine will likely also need to support JIT in order to be able to compete with Safari on performace. Doing JIT on iOS requires a special entitlement grant from Apple in order to map memory pages as executable. An application that has permission to map memory pages as executable is a coveted target for spyware and malware as it provides a much better starting point for pivoting to root and pwning the entire OS. Most other regular apps, even if they have a buffer overflow somewhere, will require a lot more fiddling in order to execute arbitrary code, and are thus a lower risk for users to install.
In short, browsers will have higher privileges that normal apps, as they can execute arbitrary code in memory, so they are naturally held to a higher standard.
To be honest I am happy about this. I don't trust a random banking / government / public transport app contracted out to the lowest bidder to be safe from all buffer overflows or other memory safety issues, so making sure they are sandboxed away from executing arbitrary code is a good thing.
> An application that has permission to map memory pages as executable is a coveted target for spyware and malware as it provides a much better starting point for pivoting to root and pwning the entire OS
No more than any other app. It runs anyway in the app sandbox, and can only access the resources that are accessible from the app sandbox itself. For the application to gain root privileges it would need to exploit a flaw in the sandbox itself, something difficult these days.
Android allows applications to map memory pages as executable (in fact you can also launch any Linux executable as a subprocess) and there was never an issue about security: if you don't have a rooted phone you don't have chances to get code running as root, since everything runs in the app container.
And if there is a flaw that allows escaping from the app sandbox, it can probably be exploited without being able to map memory pages as executable anyway, since it will probably be a flaw in a kernel system call or library function.
So really: this was always a limitation that Apple did impose to not allow in practice competing browsers in the Apple store, since a browser to be efficient this day needs to compile code as JIT, as well as not allowing applications that benefit for JIT execution (such as emulators or compilers).
There's been plenty of flaws in the app sandbox, but without the ability to execute arbitrary code they are often much much more difficult to exploit since you won't be able to invoke the particular system call or function you want to hit with just the right arguments.
For now. The EU Product Liability Directive updates and Cyber Resilience Act is going to force software and hardware makers to take a much harder look at their security choices.
I think it seems pretty clearly meant to include major competitors like Firefox and Chrome and Edge if Microsoft wants, but you can't just include a random build of Chromium that you never update.
And this seems understandable to prevent a proliferation of 100's of "browsers" trying to steal your data. You actually have to be developing something legit -- not just reskinning a browser engine and leaving it.
That is fine as an app store policy, but they also want to impose those requirements for apps outside the appstore. That is a problem, if I want to run a sketchy browser downloaded from github apple should not be able to prevent this
> That is a problem, if I want to run a sketchy browser downloaded from github apple should not be able to prevent this
You can already do that today (yes, on iOS) by using your own developer-signing certificate (because if it's from github, you can build it from source; or re-link/assembly prebuilt linkable binaries if you really feel like it).
Remember the vast, vast majority of iOS users are people like (I assume) our parents - or people we knew in the late-1990s/early-2000s with an excessive number of Internet Explorer toolbars and Bonzi Buddy. I support Apple's mission to keep crap like that off their platform, but Apple sleepwalked into prompting this regulation of their app-store because they weren't the good-stewards they said they'd be - so I'm ambivalent about the whole thing.
That still requires you to pay Apple for a developer account ($99 USD/year), requires you to own a Mac, and requires you to abide by all of Apple's rules. Meaning that Apple _can_ still prevent you from installing a sketchy browser downloaded from Github since they control everything about the build-and-signing system on the iPhone.
> You can already do that today (yes, on iOS) by using your own developer-signing certificate (because if it's from github, you can build it from source; or re-link/assembly prebuilt linkable binaries if you really feel like it).
Not if you want a browser with a JIT Javascript compiler, which for better or worse is a basic requirement for a broadly usable browser.
No, these emulators achieve JIT via a method intended for remotely debugging apps. AltStore has a way of automating this, but it requires an active server connection when the app is launched.
In AltStore's case, this means you need to be on the same wifi network as the computer running AltServer. I don't know whether it would be theoretically possible to do this over WAN, but it definitely isn't practical at a large scale.
Tbh my mom doesn't even understand how to install an app from the app store. And she comes running for everything that she is not used to. I am not concerned that she would download anything from outside. But I do get your point that many people are incapable of evaluating what aoftware is trustworthy (and hell you cant always know there is a risk even with open source software that seems trustworthy unless you actually read all the source code, which I very rarely do and only for small programs or small parts of programs). However I do not think it is Apple's responsibility or right to be the guardian here.
The entitlements for browser development are almost certainly not going to be given out to people on the free tier and probably not even to all paid developer program accounts. Any entitlement that's available to free tier becomes something that you can sideload with AltStore, which works almost exactly as you suggest.
They do the same thing with the VPN entitlement. If you want to filter network traffic on-device, you have to apply for it and identify yourself to Apple. If they didn't do this China would be banning iPhones left and right.
A whole bunch of tech guys fundamentally don’t understand how naïve many users are and how hostile the environment is.
What we need is a fundamentally different model for device security in our users. Their device is insecure and everything they might do online will expose them to an attacker.
But that overturns 40 years of UI improvement so people can use their devices without thinking.
While I agree with you, I think it is already possible to make a "browser" on iOS today that tries to steal your data. The only thing stopping it is manual review, not any technological measures. In fact, if the point of an app is to steal your browsing data, it is easier for them to stick with WebKit and WKWebView than to invest in a new browsing engine. Existing APIs provide plenty of opportunity to inject almost annything into web views.
No it's not understandable. The iphone is a Turing complete computer. I should be allowed to install whatever I want on it.
If I want to install a reskin of firefox then I should be able to do that. It's certainly not up to Apple to decide this for me.
Why? It’s one thing to say that you will never buy something because you can’t use it the way you want. It’s quite another to say that thing should adhere to your standards whether you buy it or not. It sounds even sillier if you make your demand after you already bought it.
“I should be allowed to…” will always reek of entitlement. Pick your hardware and platform on your likes and needs. There are plenty of options to choose from.
Its usual BS from Apple. Imagine Microsoft blocking all non-store applications from running on Windows "to help keep users safe". No I'm not cheering for Microsoft to do the same. Its strange, but I want Apple to be more like Microsoft in this regard.
Exactly, they're conflating choice with complexity. As you said, you can have any level of control, via various permission levels.
I think what would be helpful if there was a concept of a "system admin" profile that you could apply onto any device/computer. Non-technical users may want Apple to be the 'sysadmin' and only use the Apple store, use Apple recommended apps, etc. - Kinda like the an MDM profile.
Any other vendor, as a paid/managed service, could supply a more permissive app store, and manage updates, etc. Companies who issue work devices would have their own "profile" to manage the device.
Windows was created before t security in computing was a thing.
It’s an completely invalid comparison.
But even if we accept that comparison, how about OSX? OSX has been tremendously secure through its existence and it allowed users to do whatever the F they wanted to do with it until recently.
Device Name: App can access the device's name, like "John's iPhone."
Device Model and OS Version: App can identify the device type (e.g., iPhone 14) and iOS version.
Carrier Information: App can access network provider details.
Wi-Fi Information: App can determine if Wi-Fi is enabled, but not specific network names or passwords. Battery Level: Accessible without explicit permission: Apps can access the current battery level without needing explicit user consent.
2. Contextual Information:
Current Language: App can adapt content based on language settings.
Time Zone: App can display time-related information accurately.
3. Necessary Functionality:
Push Notifications: Apps can receive push notifications without explicit permission, but users can control this in Settings.
Local Network Access: Apps can automatically access devices on the same local network (e.g., a printer).
Background App Activity: Some apps can function in the background for tasks like downloading updates or syncing data.
4. Permissions Granted During Installation:
Keyboard and Siri: Apps can request full access to the keyboard and Siri without additional prompts.
5. Accelerometer:
No permission required: Unlike many other sensors, the accelerometer on iOS devices does not require explicit user permission for the app to access its data. However, there are some limitations:
Foreground access: Apps can only access the accelerometer while they are actively in the foreground. Background access is restricted.
Privacy concerns: While user consent isn't explicitly requested, some users might still find accelerometer access concerning due to its potential to reveal information about device movement and tilt. Transparency in app descriptions and responsible data handling are crucial.
6. Barometer:
No permission required: Similar to the accelerometer, the barometer also doesn't require explicit user permission for access. It functions alongside the Core Motion framework, used for motion and environment-related data.
Or not publishing documentation (they were also forced by the EU to do so ironically) that has allowed the likes of OpenOffice to read Office docs and become a legitimate alternative, because of security (Office docs are a security risk and showing hackers how they work makes them a bigger security risk…).
Thanks, but I like my example, even if you find it inconvenient. I don't find it strange at all that the most popular operating system gets exploited the most. Luckily, Windows is not in the top 5 for reported vulnerabilities.
Apple sells billions of iPhones because grandma can’t accidentally install ransomware or a key logger by clicking on the wrong link. There’s nothing you can do to rewrite Windows’ multi-decade reputation for this.
This thread is about Apple's poor decisions, and general bad track record of putting money over user freedom. They are in the wrong for preventing users from installing apps of their choice on a device they paid for.
You defending them with a ridiculous talking point about scary viruses and grandma doesn't work anymore, sorry!
It’s the “cool” phone brand because it’s a quality product beloved by hundreds of millions of diverse people worldwide. Not having to deal with basic security issues is one of the thousands of reasons why.
I don’t think it will used against Blink and Gecko for obvious compliance reasons. But this clause will help Apple pressure them to keep security updates timely (which is a good things for the users).
On the other hand they will likely use this to deny all ‘niche’ browser engine without a structured organization behind them (think Ladybug, maybe servo etc.)
> A new version of Safari shipped 17 times in the last 28 months — version 15.0, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 16.0, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 17.0, 17.1, and now, today’s Safari 17.2.
> A new version of Safari shipped 17 times in the last 28 month
> Yes, not as frequent as monthly releases, but Apple shipped 7 Safari updates on iOS in 2023.
That's a very recent change: prior to 2022 Apple had far fewer updates to Safari on both macOS and iOS - and still witholds Safari updates from older iOS versions - for example, there was only 1 macOS Safari update per year between 2008 and 2015, and only 2 updates per year from 2015 to 2022; while things were just as sparse on iOS.
We're litigating Apple's release cadance from 9 years ago?
I get it. Apple used to update Safari infrequently. In the past two years they've increased how frequently they update. "Apple patch their browser twice a year at best" is no longer true.
No, it seems like we're litigating the cadence for a period of 15 years, ending only 2 years ago.
Here's the options:
1. Apple was wildly irresponsible with the security and privacy of their users for a decade and a half, despite this childish press release about how EU is making their users less secure.
2. The risk profile of browsers only changed in the last couple of years, and until then it was totally safe for iOS browsers not to be patched regularly.
3. Apple doesn't particularly prioritize their users' security, but are setting up one more malicious compliance roadblock for anything that could threaten the tens of billions in pure profit they squeeze out of the Safari monopoly.
None of those options apply: Apple did (and still does) ship regular security updates for iOS users which included Safari, but did not include Safari web-platform feature updates (i.e. CSS+JS+etc support) unless it was a significant iOS update (such as the yearly major-number increase or the "half-term" point releases) until 2022.
Apple's handling of Safari mirrors Microsoft's stated plans for Internet Explorer back when Windows XP (and IE6) launched in 2001: they said they'd treat the browser as a core OS component that would only receive major web-platform updates with major OS releases (hence why we had to wait five years between IE6 and IE7, during which Firefox saved us from a mediocre web experience).
...could be worse: could have been like Outlook which has been stuck on Word's HTML rendering engine since 2007 right through until today's "New Outlook" rewrite - that's that's got to be an unbeatable record for the "world's most stagnant web-browser".
These requirements are things like "Use memory-safe programming languages", "Adopt the latest security mitigations", if you ship your own certificate trust you should "provide information on how a root certificate authority (CA) can apply to become part of the program".
All seems like pretty basic conditions designed to ensure that only Mozilla and Google can comply.
To be honest, the browser engine stuff seems significantly more robust and permissive that I was expecting.
Pretty funny to see "use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages" as a requirement when WebKit itself is built on top of C++ code.
I wonder if Apple would be allowed to ship WebKit if they enforce this requirement under the spirit of the EU laws that made them change their minds.
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the Alternative Web Browser Engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content
> Pass a minimum percentage of tests available from industry standard test suites: 90% from Web Platform Tests and 80% from Test262
Why is it any of Apple's business how many test suites a third party browser can pass?
Why can't iPhone users run Links if they want to? Why can't they run a browser without Javascript support? Why can't they try out Ladybird to see how development is progressing?
Like, even from a pure Apple-is-greedy perspective I don't understand the point of this.
Ridiculous fee for for-profit companies that want to sell their software for free, aka where you are the product?
Sorry, I won’t be crying that no MetaStore will be financially possible. But an FDroid alternative can work, and that’s the only thing I wanted (and many end-users who didn’t even know they wanted it)
A clear sign that good anti-monopoly regulations result in a better world. Less rent-seeking from Apple at the expense of smaller software developers, more agency for users when it comes to choosing their browser engine. I am sorry for non-EU consumers.
I would argue that the regulation seems pretty ineffective since it was clearly too vague to force any change productive to the average end user. You can only get things through “approved marketplaces” where apple still has to notarize and still collects a fee. This new “core technology fee” is also concerning.
The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an android level of openness, and it seems to have failed at that and apple has made the experience altogether worse in retaliation.
For the record - I’d love to have side loading on my phone. I’d love to be able to load IntelliJ on an iPad, but it is not the place of a government to regulate how a company is able to use their own platform that they developed with their own money and tools. It is not a monopoly, android exists so there is still user choice. Are we going to start worrying about the inability to download doom to your Samsung fridge because it doesn’t offer user choice?
I’d argue that this isn’t a good example of an effective anti monopoly regulation, it’s a good example of how government regulation tends to just result in things being worse and more complex as everyone enters a race to sidestep.
> but it is not the place of a government to regulate how a company is able to use their own platform that they developed with their own money and tools.
Umm, yes it is. There are plenty of government regulations of companies that are like this but you're so used to it elsewhere that you don't notice or think about it.
I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both spent billions developing and maintaining their respective platforms. A government entity shouldn’t be able to overreach and regulate how they are able to maintain and distribute their own platform.
If Apples decisions were truly so anti-consumer, then consumers would use a different platform, such as android. This is as a developer who has to pay the App Store fees.
All this regulation has done is make the app acquisition experience on iOS worse as a whole and laid a minefield of vague legal regulations and lawsuits yet to come.
Apple (and every other company) is already subject to tons of consumer regulations -- many of them already concerning how they maintain, manage, and distribute their own platform. So why are all those regulations ok but this one isn't? If we remove all consumer protections and regulations then consumers could still -- as you say -- choose to use a different platform.
You could argue this specific regulation itself is bad -- like you can with all other regulations -- but the concept of regulating a business for the benefit of consumers has long been already decided everywhere in the world.
I don’t have any substantive basis to argue some other regulation versus this one that isn’t an emotional basis as a developer without doing further research, but this regulation has now inadvertently made it a worse experience. To my perception this regulation has gone far deeper than any before defining the “market gatekeepers” and attempting to govern how a company can monetize its own market. Regulations are usually “how a company can sell a product in the free market” not “how a company can monetize the services of its already existing product”. That is a consideration of the consumer during purchasing of the product, or a consideration of the developer when developing for it.
At the minimum, this was a poorly planned and executed regulation as displayed by Apple here.
Digital services revenue didn’t exist in the 19th and if even at all during the end of the 20th century, so this is still a relatively new space in the timescale of government regulation, and is an entirely new type of market.
Financial services, subscriptions, and other service-based commercial relationships pre-date digitalisation by decades. The main differences for digital products are actually items that Apple are rejecting even today: the fact that national borders are disappearing, and that unregulated everything-as-subscription creates neofeudal relationships. Hopefully we'll address that at some point.
> I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both spent billions developing and maintaining their respective platforms. A government entity shouldn’t be able to overreach and regulate how they are able to maintain and distribute their own platform.
What? That's a large part of most government's responsibility. If we used the logic you described above, then the US government should never of touched Big Tobacco, Bell, Standard Oil, US Steel, ect.
I don't really want to debate if the multi-trillion dollar conglomerate known as Apple is a monopoly, however I'll happily engage with anyone who thinks a government shouldn't regulate a company they concluded to be anti-competitive and monopolistic.
So when do I get to set up my own furniture stores in Ikea (HQ: Stockholm, Sweden, European Union) or have my own bakery inside a Carrefour (HQ: Paris, France, European Union)?
Supermarkets and furniture stores are pretty competitive …
I have an example from Germany, though, for you: stores selling newspapers and magazines basically have no choice on what exactly to sell. The goal of this regulation is that no matter where you are, basically all publications are available everywhere easily.
In that sense stores are sort of forced to act sort of like ISPs for print publications. They just have to offer everything.
> The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an android level of openness
And if I’m reading it right, both apple and the eu (and its citizens) can share a cake happily - a nonprofit org can create an app store without any fees (f-droid alternative), where end-users can safely install actually free and not freemium software, while meta/google will be blocked from leeching on the platform due to their network effect, at least doing free apps as a for profit company (aka, where the user itself is what gets sold) will not be financially sensible way, so they have to play by apple’s ways (which is again, both a win for apple and the end-users for stricter privacy regulations).
Also, I do think that certain specialized, commercial software may find its niche on alternative stores, and that’s also a win for everyone - they surely calculated that transaction costs not going through apple is better for them even with the cost.
> The goal from the EU was clearly to make iOS have an android level of openness
If regulation is supposed to help consumers, and a large percentage of consumers have chosen the non-Android option, why was any regulation needed? No one was being forced onto iOS.
I think the (supposedly approved) rules ended up convoluted because many (most?) users are perfectly fine with iOS when given the choice, and the EU had to accept that fact.
Apple has found a way to comply with the letter of this law but not the spirit. Although there are a few good results from this legislation and Apple (alternative browser engines), Apple has otherwise managed to mitigate nearly everything else to where there will be no significant difference for end users or developers.
I'm sure there will be a way around this geoblock in no time. It may be as simple as changing the country in your Apple ID — just put a random address from that country in there and you're done.
They created a daemon called countryd that continuously checks a bunch of variables. Such as sim country, gps, WiFi country code if WiFi networks around you, Apple ID country etc.
I know better than to say there will never be a way around it but you’ll probably have to be able to fool it while entirely in airplane mode, without SIM, while also finding a way to actually download what you want to install.
As someone who has tried to get the non-VAT US prices - you need a credit card issued in the country you claim you’re from before downloading any apps.
That's if you plan to pay. You can download free apps without a credit card. I changed my app store country from Russia to the US this way because I got fed up with some free apps being unavailable because reasons.
But even if you do want to pay for things, I suppose you can make a second account for the desired country, activate your iPhone and set up alternative app stores with that, and then log into your real one.
At this point Apple should release an phone which has an M2 chip and runs full blown OSX but with a phone sized form factor. Then just port a phone app and have some touch enabled features for developers to design a UX for phone sized screens.
Maybe call it the MacPhone Pro and have the same level of security/customizability/install your own store as a full Mac.
That way Apple can keep the iPhone/iOS branding as the OS for customers that just want a phone that works, is fully iOS wall gardened and don't want to tinker/potentially see blue screens.
Then let the market decide. Perhaps the MacPhone would actually be more popular.
Never going to happen. Apple has steadfastly avoided risks of any one of their product lines cannibalizing sales from the others. Otherwise, your iPad Pro would be an MacPad Air or such already.
Apple has demonstrated their determination to control what is usable on the iPads and iPhones while also controlling the marketplace for same.
That thing being listening to the citizens living within EU borders who don't want gatekeepers like Apple & Google fucking them over with no recourse? Y'know, the market you've mentioned.
If Apple doesn't like it they can just close up shop in Europe, nobody's forcing them to operate there. Such a shame for them that the Brussels effect is a thing :)
Man that read was insane with all the "risk" "safeguard".
"Sssh, Apple will take care of you. We know what's best for you, don't leave the house it's safer inside. Don't see your friends when I'm not there, I need to keep you safe, you know how you get"
Christ, Apple's literally turning into an abusive partner.
Regardless of these changes or the pricing, I expect there will be very very few third party app stores created.
For a simple reason: Most iOS users don't want it and won't use them. If your app isn't available in the main store, the vast majority of users simply won't install it.
The exceptions would be perhaps extremely popular games like FortNite / Epic.
The most interesting what-if question to me: will Facebook go for it and move their apps into a Meta store and then try to push people over? They lost enough money from the App Store privacy policy changes that I’m sure they have thought about it very carefully.
I haven’t checked, but I’m certain that even if you host on a third party store you still have to follow the privacy policy of apps on the device. Having a third-party store just means you can sell apps with different terms than the AppStore.
Yes, I don’t think it’d change the OS rules for things like having to ask to use the microphone or badging when location services are in use, but I was thinking about things like the disclosures about data resale and tracking which cost Meta a fair amount of money.
This again is an interesting angle for the EU context where things like the GDPR are protecting user privacy. Would Meta be aggressive there, or simply bide their time trying to get other governments to mandate the same platform openness for devices but without the GDPR?
Looking through the comments here and I didn't see it. Does anyone have any idea how apple is going to track installs outside the app store?
Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app installed even people sideloaded it?
Also will iOS launch an un-notarized app that you side load? Probably not knowing apple, but if it won't I am not sure I consider that side loading in my opinion. This is because then that code still has be reviewed by apple to get notarized. This still gives apple the power to reject apps it does not like which negates the whole point of side loading.
> Is iOS going to be sending data to apple on each app installed even people sideloaded it?
What Apple is implementing isn't sideloading at all -- it's enabling third-party app stores that will track everything the same way Apple's store does, and using Apple's newly provided APIs.
Presumably, their "approved app stores" will be required by Apple to only distribute notarized apps. And developers will pay per-install at notarization time.
> To qualify for the [MarketplaceKit] entitlement, you must:
> [...]
> Provide Apple a stand-by letter of credit from an A-rated (or equivalent by S&P, Fitch, or Moody’s) financial Institution of €1,000,000 to establish adequate financial means in order to guarantee support for your developers and users.
> The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.
> The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.
> The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services
How is requiring them to have access to $1M acceptable, or compliant with the legislation?
> The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper
Apple state the $1M requirement is to allow for providing support to customers. There is no allowance for doing that in the regulation, and no reasonable argument can be made that lack of customer support has an impact on the integrity of the operating system or hardware. I can understand scanning software or asking for it to be uploaded and signed, that could be justified. Not this.
As a government regulation, yes, you might need some liability insurance if you want to sell food for example. Apple is acting like it's a government here.
> 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.
Looks like Apple tries to make a case to exploit this statement, which sounds exactly like a malicious compliance.
All I want is a F-Droid-esque store with sane apps. You know, open source apps, centrally built. No in-app-purchases and Chinese geotracking framework for something that is 25 lines of code to talk to some bluetooth gadget.
Ok, so I get that you want to be able to install random binaries on your phone, but I want to understand how you think that could happen without undermining the platform security model?
The inability of binaries to do malicious things on iOS is the result of the sandboxing and entitlement mechanisms of the platform. The store review and approval process is what stops applications from including entitlements that undermine the platform security. If you remove that step from the process there is nothing stopping an application shipping with the system entitlements that allow the application to read or write to other app data, or the entitlements to talk to system services without prompting permission dialogs, etc.
If you want to remove the review and approval systems that the App Store has (and it sounds like are going to be required for 3rd party stores?) you have to have an answer for that. Otherwise you just end up with the android malware problem.
You tell the user what entitlements or permissions are being requested at the point of the app trying to use them, stop treating the users like stupid children and let them make an educated decision about how to use the hardware that they own.
There are limits on Android anyway, what your side-loaded apps can do without you using a custom ROM or rooting the device is restricted somewhat.
Have you ever seen a random windows user? Do you think Grandma understands that?
I’m all for allowing power-users to side loads apps, but average user definitely needs to be thought as a child that will use 1234 as their password, and click ‘ok’ on every pop-up without even reading it.
Require the super scary "break app sandbox" entitlements to be activated behind an adb-command-mutated flag (or whatever the iOS equivalent of adb is) after jumping through the USB debugging hoops?
Which Android malware problem? Android has a permission system, every permission an app has needs to be approved by the user, and some permissions only system-apps can request.
There is no need for an app store review process to stop apps from requesting the "write to other application's data" entitlement; this can be enforced by the phone itself.
This is complete nonsense, the permissions are enforced by the OS, not by the store approval process, same for accessing the various parts of the file system.
To enforce permissions the OS needs to know what those permissions are.
That's what entitlements are, and the App Store review is what ensures you don't have bogus entitlements.
There are entitlements that, for example, control whether or not you can read the user's message database, the entitlement has to exist so that messages app and daemons can access that database. The App Store review process automatically rejects submissions with those, and other similar, entitlements. There are entitlements that allow reading and writing arbitrary data from arbitrary applications, because (for example) there are OS daemons and services that need to read/write all of that data (the settings app can report disk usage, there's the daemons that install and uninstall apps, etc), and again those entitlements are gated by store review.
The entire trust/security model for iOS starts at the store review disallowing system entitlements, and gating even allowed entitlements on appropriate notice in the app description.
Hopefully you can look at that list and get an idea of how removing the gate on applications being able to specify whatever entitlement undermines a huge component of the platform security model.
On Android system apps have permissions that user applications cannot have, this is easy to enforce by the OS, same thing for iOS, if Apple does not allow user apps to have a certain permission it would be just disable from the sandbox environment, it's not the store approval process that disallow user apps to became system apps or that would be hilarious honestly, at that point why even jailbreak the device.
Also I don't know what you mean by bogus entitlements, if it's not meant to be used by user apps than it wouldn't be available to user apps, if the app needs to have access to a certain feature that required a permission, it would need to ask gently the OS and the OS would need to approve it (maybe even after asking the user), or the app would not simply to be able to access it, so it's in the app's interest to have the permissions laid out correctly so that the OS knows. From the previous message you seem to believe that the app could just simply bypass the dialog asking the user for permission.
This basically means we won't get the most interesting benefit of sideloading which is third party clients to proprietary platforms like Messenger, Snapchat, Reddit, etc.
I am p sure what you should rather be mad at is Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group.
Spotify also has competition (more than 1) in Apple Music, Amazon Music and YouTube Music (and Deezer?), at least those are the ones I always see popping up and being used/talked about. There are then places like Bandcamp that provide something similar, but not the same.
And how can consoles get cuts of revenue when games are sold? It's all about licensing and contracts. Why does Epic get 5% on every game sold using their engine? Same reason. How can publishers sell licenses to libraries with a fixed number of checkouts and time? Same reason. And, this is the reason Apple will point to when demanding their 30% or per install fee.
"New business terms available for apps in the EU — to reflect the DMA’s requirements for alternative distribution and payment processing, Apple is also sharing new business terms for apps in the EU. Developers have a choice to remain on Apple’s existing terms or adopt new terms that reflect the new capabilities."
So this is essentially Apple making the alternative so unappealing that no-one will switch and status quo is preserved.
Apparently, once you sell in a non-Apple app store - you can't go back. Not just for the app in question; You, as a developer, can never sell in an Apple EU App Store ever again. Not even unrelated apps.
Still appealing?
"Developers who adopt the new business terms at any time will not be able to switch back to Apple’s existing business terms for their EU apps."
I have a free utility app for school kids with an install base in the multiple millions. I don’t make much off it, but many users find it helpful. It’s most popular in the EU.
So… if I’m understanding right, I need to take the app down, or start charging an up front fee to school children? Nice one Apple. I hope I’m allowed to add a pop up explaining to users why the app will now incur a mandatory charge.
The best way I can interpret this: it only applies to new downloads each year. In that case, it’s still concerning —- what happens if there is a surge of downloads? I’m on the hook for $50k overnight?
And if updates are included in this number like some comments here suggest, users aren’t going to get any bug fixes.
Wow. HN, please tell me I’m interpreting this wrong.
> Developers who don’t want anything to change can stay on the exact same business terms available today — continuing to share their apps on the App Store alone, and to use the App Store’s secure payment processing.
Thanks -- this is a relief. I hope it lasts though, I could see Apple deprecating this option in a few years, once most apps have adopted the newer terms.
‘Nobody’ is a large assumption. For developers with a consistently small download base, they can switch with little concern.
The consensus here seems to be that Apple don’t want anyone to switch. I’m not sure I fully buy into this, because most developers don’t have the size problem, so switching could be beneficial for them.
You don't have anything to worry about. You are just stuck in a nice new cage Apple has built for you because they were forced to dismantle the old cage.
So long as you are good boy and don't upload your App to any non-Apple app store, you won't be charged the per-install fee. Once you do, the gloves are off. They will start, and they won't ever stop even if you repent and go back to Apple-only distribution. Clever, right?
There is no reason to move off of Apple's App Store unless you are explicitly trying to avoid their fees, which pretty much only applies to revenue generating apps that stand to profit more by avoiding Apple's commissions than 0.5 eur/annual install.
Jesus no. Everyone gets stuck on the install fees but thats only in the equation if you switch to the new terms. And you dont have to, only if you want to use the external app stores or payment processors.
"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."
Sadly no information here about the mechanisms for how alternative app stores will work, which is the most interesting part for me. Will the .ipa format be standardized like .apk and will we be able to make iOS apps without having to use macOS?
> If you take the EU iOS market share of 33.3% and the number of EU citizens (448 million), you get ~150 million
That seems way too low out of 2 billion devices as per Apple to cause any splintering of iOS, it seems to be.
Devs will be targeting the lowest common denominator and also iOS usually goes as the US goes, so other than the EU getting a couple of neat alternative apps - this won’t amount to much in the grand scheme.
I’m also curious about this. Say you install a non-Apple App Store app in the EU, then you go to Turkey, what happens to the app you installed? Does it stop working? Does it get updates? What happens to the alternative store?
It already doesn’t do this. You can stay on the app store you are on, or switch to the app store for the country you are in.
You can even temporarily switch, install a bunch of stuff, and switch back, but doing so is extremely onerous, as I think you need to cancel all your existing subscriptions and payment methods, as well as empty your balance (not sure of specifics, done it exactly once years ago).
Currently the only requirement to join an app store is to have a valid payment mean in the store country (including gift card I think?)
Most people I know juggle multiple store accounts (one in each country) and switch the app store account when they need new apps only available on the other side.
At present yes but there were some rumours that Apple was going to apply strict
geofencing to the new changes, over and above what they currently do, for example using GPS to ensure you are in the EU.
About time. Can't wait to see this roll out worldwide!
With users able to access bleeding edge browser technologies like WASM and WebGPU, developers and users will finally get an alternative to native apps.
I don't understand, with this core technology fee I can't sell a game that is finished, only a service as it would otherwise have a possibility of it generating a continuous fee when selling it through the app store.
Of course you can. But you have to distribute it through Apple's App Store, using the existing terms which aren't going away. Then there's no core technology fee.
It means that you have to set up a nonprofit for your weekend hobby project. The reality is rather that the hobby project is unlikely to happen due to this.
And in Europe there is a slightly different perspective on companies and capitalism. “Making money” is not taken as a blanket justification for anything. Companies have social responsibilities, and there is a balancing of company and consumer interests.
A single nonprofit can create an alternative app store, and distribute any open-source app from within - this is pretty much how f-droid works on android.
I just don’t see how is it a negative change — eu citizens get more choices, while the eu laws won’t be turned against apple itself (a metastore would benefit no one, but meta).
The fee is payed by the app developer, not the third-party app store, and thus the app developer would have to be a nonprofit. Unless you want to relinquish control over your app to the third-party app store and make them the official “developer”. But third-party app stores also wouldn’t want to become liable for your app.
Whether runtime generated or downloaded from the internet, you cannot run instructions directly on the processor without requesting executable virtual pages in memory from the OS. Executable pages are also a major security vulnerability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIT_spraying
Likely because they anticipate increased competition to the App Store now, and want to pre-empt the attractiveness for developers of moving to the Epic Store or the Facebook Store etc.
What are the chances the United States (and others) follow suit? For startups, I assume most will continue to live on the App Store lest they force their users into two different experiences based on their location.
Right now, very slim. It's not in line with how the US views antitrust, and there isn't any real demand from voters.
But it depends how this plays out in Europe. If 95% of popular apps stay on the App Store, then there will continue to be no appetite for change in the US.
But if suddenly Europe is getting different, better apps than Americans are, there might be popular demand to change things. But in that case it's still easier to see Apple making the changes out of public demand, rather than US legislation.
The most likely change in the US I would expect is Apple deciding to let Chrome and Firefox distribute their own browser engines in the US, if Chrome with a Chrome engine becomes popular in Europe and provides a lot of features Safari doesn't.
My take is this will follow in the US IF a few large states make rulings on this and higher courts decline to hear appeals. Ex. GDPR -> CCPA -> most companies just did compliance anyway for the US because of California's size
The problem with the US, and we're already seeing it play out with things like CCPA (California's GDPR-like privacy legislation), is that it is difficult to get momentum and bi-partisan support for sweeping changes in Congress. It either is watered down or gets deadlocked, so you end up in a situation where you have patchwork legislation, often conflicting in scope, state-by-state. I wouldn't expect much to change in the short to medium term.
Interesting that they’ve attributed a quote to Phil Schiller!
Rolling out the big guns!
I’m guessing this has significantly rattled Apple’s cage.
> “The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings. Our priority remains creating the best, most secure possible experience for our users in the EU and around the world,” said Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow.
A significant part of this announcement seems to be the €0.50 "Core Technology Fee" that Apple will now charge for "each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold".
I think this essentially means that large developers pay €0.50 * (num apps they publish) * (num devices each app is installed on) per year. There are 2 billion active iOS devices [1], so I think that for the biggest apps like YouTube the fees could be in the hundreds of million USD per year.
4 of the top 5 most downloaded apps of all time [2] are published by Meta (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp), and I think they will pay this fee for each app?
> 2,000,000 installs is a minimum of $45k in fees, even with $0 USD revenue
> this seems obscene
This is why I never cared about the 30% take: it was combining all the costs you'd have anyway into one simple number. People just acted like those things were all free just because Apple wasn't explicitly listing them.
Could you optimise your expenses better by splitting them?
Probably.
And that may even be worth forcing the issue from a competitive PoV, because it means some customers will be effectively subsidising others: A weekly updated 2 gigabyte app that's free in the app store gets its bandwidth paid for in part by a 30 Mb app that charges a $10 monthly subscription and gets an update every 3 months.
But even then, companies are expected to make profits. What's the level where it's fine for Apple to say "we want this much extra just for us"? For a lot of people the answer seems to be "zero!" — while this probably would not disincentivise Apple from making iOS given they also profit on the hardware, it would almost certainly disincentivise Google from bothering with any updates to Android.
I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale. I can install any software I want on my desktop or laptop, and nobody gets a cut of it unless both the seller and I freely choose to use an app store.
>I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale.
In a pure technical sense, you're right, a mobile phone's computer doesn't have to be locked down such that the manufacturer like Apple controls the subsequent financial transactions on it.
Instead of technical reasons, what happened was Apple taking advantage of historical control of cellphones by the carriers that was in place before Apple flipped the relationship around in 2007:
- (1) before 2007, the cell carriers like AT&T and Verizon controlled what kind of software could be on the Palm Treo, Blackberry, Motorola, etc.
- (2) Apple showed an iPhone prototype to Cingular/AT&T that impressed them so much that they were willing to give up software platform control to Apple. This was the first time a phone manufacturer had the leverage to do this.
Cingular was lagging behind Verizon so that's why Cingular was willing to play ball and relinquish control.
- (3) after 2007, Apple now controls the phone's software ecosystem with their App Store restrictions and it's a power they want to keep. In their mind, they feel justified since they are the ones who spent money on developing the phone and they're allowing more "freedom" of 3rd-party software than the carriers did.
Apple's perspective is that its smartphones are not "open" computers like the IBM PC and Macbooks. Instead, it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation.
Another "closed" computer is the AMD Ryzen + Linux system in Tesla's infotainment system. There is no "Tesla app store" for it. Instead, a 3rd-party app like Spotify has to forge a formal contractual partnership with Tesla to get integrated into the car's software. Some stories about that: https://www.google.com/search?q=spotify+signs+partnership+wi...
Likewise, is there any technical reason why Tesla can't let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla doesn't let you.
I had a Palm Centro back in those days; you could install anything you wanted on it, and as far as I know the WinMo devices were the same. The situation you describe was the case for "dumbphones" or "feature phones", but Apple is the one who extended it to smartphones.
Of course, Apple are also the ones who extended smartphones to a mass-market product, as before then devices like the Centro were very niche.
While there were certainly closed phons prior to iPhone, there were also open platforms like Windows Mobile. You could run whatever app you wanted to on Windows Mobile.
The relationship between phone manufacturers, OS providers, and careers was pretty complex that nearly every combination of openness and restrictiveness was part of the market before 2007.
But if it was a smartphone then it allowed third party apps to be installed without restriction. However, the OS itself might have been heavily controlled and/or modified by the carrier. It was common that say, Microsoft, would release an OS update and then that OS update goes to the carrier for testing and modification and then sometime later you get it. Apple, of course, was not interested in participating in that system.
Part of the early success of Android was that being an open platform meant that carriers retained a huge amount of control and they would release heavily customized carrier-specific phones.
> it's the "closed" computers like the Sony PlayStation.
PlayStation is seen by most people as an appliance for playing video games. Phones, on the other hand, are explicitly general-purpose computers. The iPhone is literally the only case of a "closed" general-purpose computer in this entire universe.
> Likewise, is there any technical reason why Tesla can't let you sideload any app on the car? No. But Tesla doesn't let you.
Cars are effectively bullets, they can kill people, so you can't just install anything in a car. I'm sure there's plenty of laws requiring Tesla and other car manufacturers to lock down car software.
(Just like there are laws requiring phone manufacturers to lock down phones - you can't just install an app that lets you override the GSM protocol and mess with the spectrum, not even on Android!)
Well, if you have a desktop/notebook with any kind of wi-fi chip you also cant override the protocol as not to mess with the spectrum, but you still get free reign over the rest of the machine.
All that to say that if things are properly compartmentalized there is no danger in letting the user install any software he desires.
This is a really nice well-researched take that rhymes with a lot of stuff I used to read back around 2007-2009.
But it's 2024.
I grew up on the App Store, maybe I'm just old and cranky at 35. But my guess is 95% of people cry in pain when they see a wall of text about how Verizon charged for J2ME apps in 2004, therefore iPhones iPads Apple Watches Vision Pros are special exemptions and Apple should be able to bill "$0.50 per install per year." whenever a binary is installed on a device you paid for. There's 0 reason for it.
Indeed this is something that has bothered me for 20 years, though significantly more so as phones have come to resemble general purpose computers more than just phones. Back then, I explicitly bought a Cingular phone instead of Verizon, because it ran a stock flavor of the Motorola OS, rather than the custom whatever that Verizon models shipped with which didn't let you install mp3 ringtones or j2me games.
Arguably the Steam Deck is a video game console with that open model. It gets fuzzy though because an open video game console looks like a general purpose computer.
Samsung phones come with a Samsung store in addition to Google Play for instance. All of Samsungs software go through their own store, and they also sell apps on it.
So instead of "opening up" the iPhone if customers really care about the multiple app stores feature they could buy the phone with that feature correct?
It's not really any different in my mind than phones with more battery life, a better camera, or any other product mix.
In general I agree with you, I don't want my phone to be a general purpose computer.
But the situation here is that there is now an actual law mandating that no, you're not to allowed host an app store on your phone OS without allowing alternative app stores.
For an exaggerated analogy, you can't make a car without seatbelts and tell consumers that if they value safety they should purchase a different brand of car.
>>I don't want my phone to be a general purpose computer.
Too late. It already is. Which makes all these restrictions on what you can and can't do with it stupid especially if its gonna sell for an amount of money nearly equal to reasonably spec'ed laptop.
Every single child who plays Fortnite in Android does it. You can't install Fortnite through the Play Store anymore after the payment processing lawsuit stuff.
> The problem is no one has made a smartphone with that open model.
Android is fully open. No one is making you use Google services. You can, in fact, buy a Pixel and simply uninstall the Play Store. As a developer, you can distribute your app without any Google involvement whatsoever.
Well, it's important to make the distinction between the Play Store and Google Services (the software). Plenty of things _depend_ on Google Services, some of them you have no option, like bank apps.
It's true however that you can use microG to replace Google Services, but even then some banks will block your account upon doing that (happened to me).
Granted, this really is a completely different point to what you were discussing, and I do agree with you. But, if we want truly open ecosystems, we need standards that ensure the authenticity of the user. Unfortunately, that gets distopian fast.
There's also Ubuntu Touch which I hope gathers steam. I installed it on an old Pixel 3a I had lying around mostly for fun, in much the same way I did for GalliumOS install on an old HP Chromebook.
That you then can't really do anything with either because of the super limited HW support (due to only using "free" drivers) or because they're so slow you just give up in frustration. Or lack of apps.
At least in the case of the Librem 5 its wildly overpriced for what you actually get (if you ever actually get it that is).
How is the limited hardware support connected to the free drivers? You can install Mobian, postmarketOS on a Librem 5 already. Pinephone is supported by 15+ operating systems.
If you think the hardware is slow, have a look at SXMo.
> if you ever actually get it that is
They've been delivering the phones within 10 days since a long tome already. Sent from my Librem 5.
I own an HP laptop. Why should HP get any money from what I do on my laptop and the software I install on it? I already paid them. Their product is the laptop.
Let's suppose that I still use Windows, which was installed on that laptop. I'm using Debian instead, but let's forget about it. Anyway, HP probably paid Microsoft for the OS. That's all that should be. I don't see any reason for me to pay Microsoft.
Now, let's suppose that both HP and Microsoft switch to a subscription model where the laptop costs some xx Euro per month and for the OS. Then it's different, I would think if I want to enter into that relationship and if I do then I would be OK for them "to keep their finger in the pie".
I won't use Windows anyway and I probably won't buy a subscription based computer. On the other side that would make me upgrade more often. It's more or less what some people do when selling their Mac to buy a new one. Sometimes the new one is not that good though.
The vast majority of consumers prefer and benefit from aspects of this control. Despite all the horror stories (both fp and fn) they keep the App Store much safer then mass direct installs would be.
Okay, and they can keep that control while some minority choose to host elsewhere. Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
> Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store?
I did mention that part briefly. And I am still a bit confused about the decision as well given some of the subjects that suppressed.
I guess 2010's Google didn't want any trace of a popular gaming store to take over, given that we now know F2P mobile games are 70% of the app store revenue (and I'm sure it's similar to Google). If EA made the supposed Steam of Android and most games chose to focus on the EA store, that's a huge cut into Google revenue, even if most other apps would still be on the play store. So better not to risk it at all.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reality is that yes consumers do get some bit of benefit, but the real hole in the argument being made is that OS developers do make money off of us using our computers.
We all had to pay the licensing fee for the software. For many of us, a fee is paid yearly to the OS developer on our behalf. Just because the fee is not explicitly placed against our own debit/credit card balances doesn't mean a fee isn't being paid.
But even the fee argument misses the point. Myself and others are not asking that Apple not charge a fee. My feeling was that 30% on App revenue for example was too much. Given that the charges are now being itemized out in the open a bit better, do I still believe the fee was too high? I cautiously respond 'yes'. But I can now see where I might have been mistaken about what the amalgamation of the costs incurred to run this thing look like.
I guess all I really wanted was transparency. Let's get it all on the table and see what's what. Maybe 30% is a good deal? Maybe it's not? I don't know if you don't tell me everything that went into that. Consumers should be
informed, that's probably more what I believe now. I no longer believe we should change the model before we get a better idea of what the costs will be going forward. That could bankrupt a lot of small devs right now.
Perfectly valid, I feel that way about all subscription-based non-ownership — I want to buy a thing and have it and "they" can't take it away from me.
On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when operating system upgrades were around 10% of the price of the original computer (for each upgrade, about once per year but not at all regular), and when I couldn't afford a compiler.
They’re not a special case, they’re just like game consoles which are similarly locked down. The PC is the special case and I think that’s an accident of history. If the PC were brand new today it would be a locked down, walled garden like all the rest.
The PC is “the one that got away” in fishing parlance.
I think the distinction in my head is that game consoles are explicitly single-purpose (or very limited-purpose), whereas smartphones are playing at being general purpose, but only insofar as their manufacturer approves of that purpose.
Personally I see the broader trend towards highly-restricted corporate-controlled hardware (of all types) as something explicitly detrimental that we should push back on wherever possible.
> I don’t see why smartphones inherently have to be a special case of computer where the manufacturer or OS developer gets to keep their finger in the pie after the sale.
You mean like consoles, set top boxes, and smart TVs?
Personal computers are the special case where you don’t have to pay the platform provider - there are far more phones+consoles+set top boxes than computers
As far as I know I can sideload apps onto my smart TV, and Sony isn't get a cut of my streaming subscriptions. Ultimately, though, those devices generally don't pretend to be general-purpose, whereas I think smartphones do, just with restrictions such that the manufacturer can keep a revenue stream going.
That’s not according to case law. Google got in trouble explicitly because they advertised their operating system as “open” and then changed the rules.
Apple was very explicit from day one and anyone who buys an iOS device knows exactly what they are going to get.
What costs that are rolled into Apple’s 30% are you saving on? Payment processing is let’s say 3% (including chargebacks). Delivering updates is just pushing bits, practically zero. What else are they doing?
If Apple features you, then I guess it’s pretty fair to say you’ve paid a marketing expense, but they feature a tiny percent of apps. Most of us get nothing but buried in the app store.
I'm not the person you responded to, but I'd also include stuff like developing the APIs developers use, Swift and SwiftUI, Xcode, developer docs, etc. Basically everything that Apple does that makes it possible for a developer to produce a high quality app on their phone. Apple has to pay for all that somehow, and that revenue has to come from somewhere. Product sales are one place, but it's a one time purchase and so there's even less incentive to support old phones. Charging per app install is a pretty easy way to do it, aligns the incentives decently well, and a cost to the developer proportional to how much users/benefit they get.
They could also just charge a large cost for access to the SDK a la console systems, or not actually track the downloads but have a license agreement where you pay based on your user base like other ecosystems (Unity?).
> Apple does that makes it possible for a developer to produce a high quality app on their phone
This is not one sided at all. Historically generally Apple benefited more from developers releasing apps on their platforms than the other way around. Arguably that's still the case.
> Apple has to pay for all that somehow
So by selling devices? How did they pay for developing OSX/macOS and their APIs and tools for decades?
> They could also just charge a large cost for access to the SDK a la console systems,
There are many exploitative and unfair things they could do because of their dominant positions in the market, yes that's correct.
1. Apple and Microsoft have both developed these things for 40 years without the fees and restrictions. They do it for the health of their ecosystem to sell devices/OSes.
2. The only reason there are two mobile OSes with significant marketshare (instead of more than two) is the app library. WinMo never took off because even though it was a wonderful OS, they couldn't get developers to make apps. It's hard to imagine now that any party, even one with practically infinite money like Amazon or Apple or Samsung, could develop a successful mobile OS because they'd be launching with two million fewer apps.
Chromebooks have been selling briskly with a relatively new OS because people no longer cared about apps on desktops when everything started working in a browser. This is the obvious attack vector for phones. If you can do everything in a browser you can do in an app, the door is open for another OS. That's why Apple doesn't want third-party browsers.
> Apple doesn't develop those SDKs and tools in order to make money selling them to developers; Apple develops that stuff in order to sell iPhones.
Nobody buys an iPhone because of the SDK.
Nobody… except perhaps developers.
Apple makes those things so that developers make more apps for their phones, which they want to support in order that people continue to buy new phones.
> Apple charges 30% simply because they can, and nobody has stopped them.
Yes.
And unless the government says "the thing we don't like is specifically the price", what you're going to get from demanding side-loading and other app stores is going to look like the same price charged in a more complex way that's distributed differently over all the developers.
This also means that it's likely some app providers will suddenly discover their costs go up.
As a consumer, I'm fine with however this shakes out: I spend almost nothing on apps anyway, and the selection is too large for me to care about the size and diversity within the marketplace.
As an iOS app developer, I have no idea how any of these options may or may not affect the demand for my skills on the job market, but I still don't care much because GenAI is a much bigger change than all of these options combined.
As an investor, I've been expecting Apple to hit the upper limit for corporation size before monopoly lawsuits 2 trillion dollars of market cap ago, which is one reason why I bought S&P 500 instead of APPL (the other being I'd like my income and my investments to avoid too many correlated failures).
To add to this historically Apple charged for OS updates. Windows still does. With iOS Apple switched their model to making the updates free and charging developers on the backend to monetize their software.
But most companies have some plan to monetize their software even if they also make money on the hardware.
Nothing quite says "high trust ecosystem" as when the people charging you 30% also make a buck on top from competitors putting their app in front of customers looking for your app by name.
> Building and supporting the SDKs that developers use to make money.
You're implying that this is a somehow onesides transaction and Apple is doing developers a favour while Apple always needed third party developers as much as developers need them (with iOS of course this balance changed a bit which allowed Apple to become a lot more exploitative than they were before/still are if we're talking about macOS)
Yes, and Epic charges a lot less for their support. We say how Unity was eviscerated for a much cheaper runtime fee, I can't imagine Apple gets away with triple the pricing.
Is it? Epic doesn't only provide and engine to make a game with. Online services, access to extremely high fidelity assets (meta human, Quixel megascans), photogrammetry. And of course it's working on its own store. All of these have a lower cut even if you don't negotiate.
The primary purpose of the 30% fee is not payment processing or delivering updates, it is the licensing fee for the use of Apple's intellectual property (SDKs and developer tools).
The primary purpose of the 30% is to get 30% of money. If apple could get away with 60 they would. Apple more than pays for the SDK development just with their cut of child casino apps they sell. Everything else is just free cash.
And? You can say the same about pretty much anyone that sells anything. Why does a restaurant charge $15 for a cocktail that costs them 50 cents to make?
Does Google charge a .50 per install fee for Android apps not installed via the Play Store? Does Microsoft charge a .50 per install fee for Windows apps not installed via the Windows Store? Apple is just making these charges up, because they think they can get away with it. It doesn't cover any real costs to Apple, above and beyond what you already pay for when you buy an Apple device.
I am wondering how the EU market will react. How many businesses in the EU have free apps that have more than 1 million users? Will businesses start charging for their apps in the EU just to recover the cost, or pull out entirely? Maybe more will offer fully featured websites and drive customers there instead. I don't know, but it seems like a stupid move on Apples part, a big game of chicken.
Is an app like eBay free in your definition? Because then you have Allegro, which is giant here in Poland. Apps from telcos. Public transit apps. InPost over here is quite big in deliveries. I think Alza in Czechia and Slovakia can easily have a couple million users.
Not very many businesses, but there are quite a few biiig ones.
Here on HN I often read startup stories about services which, on one hand, “nobody” has heard about, and which, on the other hand, “quickly grew to a couple million users and started having scalability problems”, which then spawns some story about scalability tricks. Always leaves me astonished as to how the heck some another glorified todo list/cat picture thing can rake millions of users so fast, but here we are.
I suspect there are way more niches in which tens of millions of users live, which the rest of us can just be ignorant of. It’s only when you approach a billion users that you can be sure “everyone” at least has heard the name of the service/app.
eBay is a great example for this case, yes. It would be very easy for ebay to stop distributing an iOS app in the EU, and instead push those users to using the ebay web app. Ebay could put more resources into making the webapp better, and avoid paying Apple a ridiculous annaul per installation charge.
But the thing is, the free apps can also just use the pre-existing distribution mechanisms. Of course, it's giving Apple the leverage to say, "see? No one* wants to use the alternative stores!", but also think that if you have an entire team with experience and established relationship of App Store review shenanigans, you just continue to use it.
It's more interesting about the upstart companies who might get big one day.
There a free apps that don't exist on iOS simply because Apple doesn't want them in their store. These apps are not necessarily malicious, but may contain content that Apple wishes to censor. If Apple continue to say what is and is not allowed on iOS, then nothing/not much is gained by this regulation.
Edit: Of course, eBay will likely continue to be allowed.
I wasn't aware that there was a choice for EU developers to use the new pricing model or the old one? If free apps can stick to the "30% of nothing" commission, yeah, I suppose most will do that.
As threeseed mentioned, most free apps esp. those without a per-install revenue source (e.g., Wikipedia) will likely not use the new model and stick with the old model which doesn't charge per app install
I suppose ultimately, the market is fragmenting and Apple is aiming to pull and set levels to encourage as many developers as possible to stick with the current system.
I suppose they're counting on the fact that inertia and laziness will encourage continued loyalty when it comes to non free apps.
Right I agree, the new model does seem quite punitive especially if you don't have an existing business model.
Imagine a new developer publishes a free app without a plan for monetization, and then it goes viral. They would be on the hook for thousands of dollars.
Unless they have a reason to switch most new apps will likely stick to the old model
> Does Google charge a .50 per install fee for Android apps not installed via the Play Store?
Give it about a month, and I'd guess so.
> Apple is just making these charges up, because they think they can get away with it.
Yes, with my non-existent MBA I assumed that's how most businesses set prices?
Business are not your friend, they're looking out for themselves only. This is why I do actually like governments: they can force businesses to be more aligned with public interests, even when that costs shareholders some dividends.
More fees can make them more money, but if they raise it too high developers will stop developing for the platform. It's up to Apple to decide on the right trade off where they make money and have a competitive platform to Android and Windows.
This applies similarly to many other businesses. There is a sweet spot for prices to maximize profit.
Let's see where they find their 30% if browsers were required to provide (essentially) 100% features of native apps, and if they were required not to charge for them.
Maybe iPhone costs would increase a few percent, probably not.
Fun fact: they already do. (Or at least Mozilla did, but given their massive engineering power it would be surprising if Google wasn't doing it as well).
From what I heard at a Mozilla meetup a few years ago, the only thing that prevented Mozilla to ship the actual Firefox to iOS back then was Apple ToS banning apps with their own JIT compiler built-in.
>A weekly updated 2 gigabyte app that's free in the app store gets its bandwidth paid for in part by a 30 Mb app that charges a $10 monthly subscription and gets an update every 3 months.
I've been wondering for a long time why there are no delta-updates at Apple...
I don’t think that’s true. People complain about tipping culture, which generally demands about 15-20%, sometimes less (e.g. for whatever reason, hotel housekeeping only gets a few dollars even if the room is $100 per night). If tipping 10% was the norm, you think there would barely be any complaining?
The buyer always wants the transaction to be more affordable and the seller always wants the transaction to be more profitable. The exact numbers don’t change that.
I think the thing that angers people is that the cost feels hidden, even if it’s common knowledge. You look at menu prices and see a price but tips, taxes, and credit card processing fees aren’t included. It can take you by surprise if you’re not thinking about it, even if you’ve been through the same dance many times before.
If I were running Apple, I would instead find a way to charge for developer accounts, code signing, etc. Things that are set up ahead of time and can have a known value, charged for upfront. I believe this would feel more fair, no matter the cost.
This is nonsense. Apple executives have repeatedly claimed that the 30% fee was a good deal compared to retail boxed software which they say was the norm in 2005 or so, but really there were large numbers of small independent software vendors making good money through specialised e-commerce vendors like DigitalRiver or the original Kagi with fees in the 8-15% range iirc, or just selling direct with payment processors like PayPal for ~5%. Bandwidth was not a big cost back then and still isn’t today unless you’re doing something like 4K video streaming.
> Kagi with fees in the 8-15% range iirc, or just selling direct with payment processors like PayPal for ~5%. Bandwidth was not a big cost back then and still isn’t today unless you’re doing something like 4K video streaming.
That's untrue, from my experience using Kagi (payment processor and marketplace/in-app SDK) to sell shareware in c. 2010.
Kagi had fixed fees in addition to a percentage, so anything sold for $5 had close to 30% just from Kagi, and my bandwidth also independently ended up close to 30% of my post-marketplace fees.
Hmm, perhaps my memory is from more like the $15-20 price point. Lower sale price would result in greater percentage being eaten by fees for sure. I remember using eSellerate c. 2005 and it was much less than 30%.
It looks like updates can count as a first annual install:
A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, and/or a custom app.
However, there's extra mumbo jumbo about "it doesn't count for 12 months after a first install is counted. But the next one after starts a new first annual install."
So it's essentially some kind of twisted Orange County MLM logic.
>So it's essentially some kind of twisted Orange County MLM logic.
Are you referring to something specific here? Does Orange County have some stereotyped association with MLM schemes or something? (I'm genuinely asking as that would be hilarious and I'd love to learn more)
Orange county is stereotypically a hotbed of MLM scams. Stay in a hotel there sometime and half the conference rooms will likely be booked by one or another.
I’m from OC I didn’t know this was our stereotype but I’ve been pitched a bunch of MLM schemes when I was younger. I thought this was all over the place. However I haven’t been pitched anything since at least 10 years ago. Maybe I don’t look like I have a sphere of influence anymore lol
"A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, and/or a custom app."
> First annual install. The first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge.
This is on a per account basis - not a per device basis. The install for a phone and iPad are the same install.
Note there is zero way to audit this charge from apple. There's no way to identify an install on iOS anymore unless the user signs in/signs up for an account.
There's also usually up to a 10% "breakage" between people who install from the App Store but never run your app.
You don’t have to sign up for an account, an app can install some type of opaque object in iCloud that they can use to identify someone who uses their account.
If I delete Overcast from my iPhone or install it on a brand new iPad, all of my data is kept in sync. That data is stored in a database where the user id is that opaque blob.
Marco Arment (the author) does all he can to discourage users from storing a user name/password/email address as part of the login and only requires you to have one to associate your user to your account to access your podcasts on the web.
But I agree, as expected, this will go to round two.
Probably not even a new DMA just a court case about malicious compliance. The DMA was written expecting apples reaction
Still that they will reduce the commission fee is quite important on its own.
If this reduces the flood of free ad financed apps and moves the market to a more sustainable model I'm all for it (although I realise this stance is probably controversial)
> 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.
The new business terms including the Core Technology Fee are only required for developers who will want to be able to upload their apps to alternative app stores like f-droid:
Pretty clear malicious compliance. "Oh, you want to be able to distribute your popular free apps on other app stores? You gotta start paying us massively then."
I wonder how they should comply with the law in your eyes. What is a fair way for Apple to recoup the investment they make into their developer programs?
- They sell hardware and licensed software to consumers. Within the law they may ask for money for feature updates.
- They also charge developers for access to their tools and access to their store front and payment handling.
That's all legit and if they want to hike prices or put parts of that information behind paywalls, the market will sort it out.
But if a consumer and a third party developer want to do business without all that, then it's my (and the DMAs) stance that apple has no right to a share of that. They EU is increasingly of the opinion that, in general, a device has to serve its owner and not the original manufacturer.
When they want to protect consumers by scanning for known malware that's fine but "Apple loses revenue" is not a threat at all.
So I’ve got to ask, is malicious compliance a real actionable legal theory or is it just something that has been written about but never prosecuted?
It reads like one of those buzzwords that doesn’t actually mean anything useful in a the context of a court of law, at least as a prosecutable offense, but gets talked about like it does, because the statement itself reads like an oxymoron. You’re either compliant with the law or you’re not, and malicious is subjective. Am I off base by saying that? What am I missing?
Yeah, except the text matters a whole lot more than the intent because that’s what you’re going to read and reference when determining how to comply. If the intent is just for Apple to roll over and show their belly, they’re not really obligated to do that. A legislative body can always rewrite laws passed by the same legislative body if the first set of laws isn’t working out the way they hoped, and the EU is a supranational entity formed by treaty between peoples with few in the way of what can be called shared legal traditions or sensibilities so you have to think the text has to really matter here.
So if it comes down to whether Apple is compliant, wouldn’t you just stack up their measures against the law as written? Which would then mean compliance is compliance, and the onus then falls on whatever prosecutorial authority is empowered here to show that it is not.
They will, the question that really matters is will developers. Is the case for DIY that compelling amongst European companies? I think it will cost companies more to rebuild their own walled garden then what it's worth. I suspect we're not going to see much change, and that most will stick with what they have. There doesn't seem to be any financial incentive to leave at this point.
You know these rules were drafted in cooperation with the EU right? Vestager was at Apple's HQ 2 weeks ago, and the EU spends millions to keep a regulator presence in Silicon Valley.
The commission knows they really don't have much to stand on, if they go any farther they know other EU countries are going to step in again (these rules are not very popular anymore after GDPR and now that the EU is falling even farther behind the USA economically).
The EU commission is a lot less powerful than a lot of terminally online Americans like to believe. EU courts constantly rule against them for overstepping their bounds and they have been caught submitting fake evidence before (see: Qualcomm case)
And if that's the case, I'd expect them to be more hostile to American tech companies than European social democrats, because those companies are instruments of American power.
No law like the DMA passes without the approval of parliament and the council of member states. In fact, all the details are hashed out between these two bodies with little to no say from the commission.
BTW: The way the commission is selected is one step removed from the voters but this principle is not too uncommon in European parliamentary democracies. For example the German or Austrian Chancellors or the prime ministers of Italy ,Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Poland are elected in a similar fashion.
It says "each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold" which I think means as long as you're updating your app at least once a year, you pay for each device your app is installed on (minus 1 million, which is a rounding error for the biggest apps).
> First annual install. The first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge.
Multiple devices with one account or new devices over the course of the 12 months are still a single install.
> 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.
You don’t have to pay the fee if you stay on the existing business terms.
> Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms.
Nothing here suggests the new terms replace the existing terms, just that it's now a choice for developers in the EU.
I suppose the difference being gamers seem to hate everything large game companies do, but tech community is pretty split down the middle on Apple being beyond reproach vs them being evil incarnate.
If they publish through the App Store they pay nothing though (for a free app), so won’t this just mean free apps stick to the Apple App Store and apps over the break even price (€0.50/30% commission in the App Store) go to side loading?
A big reason for alternative app stores is to allow apps that do not comply with app store rules though. Think emulators for instance. Or any other of the long list of arbitrary app store rules.
Yeah, I can only see this deal right now being beneficial if it's your only choice due to Apple simply not wanting to host your apps. So, 18+ apps, emulators, various apps banned from the app store over drama (Fortnite).
It's also beneficial if you keep you
1. Keep your install base under 1M. So only if you're sure you have a niche app that you barely need to maintain.
2. If you somehow have a premium popular app. A $2 app would mean Apple is taking a 25% cut, a $5 app is taking 10%. Of course, since this is per device you will probably be hit by users who use multiple devices. Worse yet, apparently the install fee is "first install per year" and includes updates. So you will take a huge revenue dive if you want to maintain, de-incentivizing devs from supporting existing users
3. Manage your own alternative storefront. I feel this is where the deal may start to hit anti-trust issues depending on how the store takes these costs. Apple doesn't have to pay it's own store fee while a new store has to pay Apple for existing. Sounds like a way to suppress competition before it starts.
I guess Epic v Apple part 2 will hit faster than expected.
EDIT: oh, I don't know the logistics, but #4 can be ad supported apps. The most user hostile style of app but potentially one that can keep making it's $0.50 back year after year if they have an engaged user base. But since I know so little about adtech I am happy to be corrected on if this is sustainable
"First install per year". So reinstalls after a year will be charged again. Honestly, it makes sense to charge for the bandwidth Apple provides. I'd rather see it broken out than baked into a 30% fee. Doing so would massively incentivize smaller binary sizes.
Exactly. People would conisder these alternative stores precisely so they don't have to rely on Apple's Bandwidth. But Apple apparently wants to get their money no matter how you host your app, and $100/seat/year is not enough money for them I suppose.
> Honestly, it makes sense to charge for the bandwidth Apple provides
The bandwidth that everyone is forced to use. The web has shown that decentralizing distribution is not only possible but works well. This is just another way for the worlds most profitable company to continue to rent seek.
Yes also for updates or pushed via mdm. But only once per account. Doesn’t matter how many devices you have on that account. It counts as 1 install every year.
As an aside, look how clear and well-written this web page is. I'm always blown away by how well the whole Apple ecosystem (even the the developer documentation) is designed
This means that alternative app stores will essentially not be allowed to distribute free apps, right? As soon as they reach the install threshold they will start owing Apple money. And distributing an update counts as an "install" for the purposes of the fee: https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/
I think this point is going to be the biggest sticking point to EU regulators. Third party app stores not being able to reasonably distribute free apps is a massive competitive disadvantage.
>Any apps distributed through third parties pay their own CTF if they meet the threshold.
But that cost to free apps means that useful free apps won't sign up to the program, and therefore won't be available in the third party stores. It's a distinction without a difference. While I'm sure Apple will argue the distinction when they get pulled up on this, it's pretty obvious that the EU is expecting viable 3rd party stores and Apple will be forced to deliver it. The more they screw around the more likely that EU will set stronger regulations with less discretion on implementation.
GP was talking about alternative stores picking up the tab for the apps they distribute. That’s simply not the case.
Now you bring up a new concern.
Namely that useful free apps would get so popular outside of the App Store that they’ll reach 1M installs on EU iPhones within a given year and that the cost per install they owe over installs in excess of that 1M would be prohibitively costly that they’d rather not.
I think that’s a pretty significant difference from the other scenario, one in which alternative stores are on the hook for all the apps they host.
Normally I would chalk it up to a difference of opinion, but we’re talking about significant factual differences.
Meta-discussion aside, I struggle to come up with an example of such an app that currently exists and would be subject to that CTF.
Non-profits, educational institutions and governments are exempt, so you’d almost certainly end up with an app by a company that extracts value out of it whether as a companion app to a service or some startup that’s burning through runway money.
Ultimately Apple wants to be paid for their IP, for the use of their frameworks and toolchain.
Earlier this week some people were saying that Apple then should split off the fee for that from the commission.
This is exactly that, and at a progressive rate where the first million installs is free, seems fair enough to me.
I see no viability issues for third party stores here because one way or another there is no free lunch.
> The more they screw around the more likely that EU will set stronger regulations with less discretion on implementation.
As someone who used to practice law in the EU on an EU and international level this always makes me chuckle.
The EU and its bodies are not some benevolent dictatorship that can do whatever they want.
They too need to move within the bounds of the law and have been burned when crossing those boundaries.
The DMA in its current form hasn’t even been subjected to adjudication, which on its own is going to be quite interesting, much less some hypothetical v2 that is stricter.
The main hurdle for the EU (and the US for that matter) is IP and property rights.
You can’t legislate your way around that without significant overhaul which would reverberate across all of commerce.
Or put plainly: you can’t just say “what’s yours is now public domain”.
Closest you’re ever going to get is “what’s yours should be sold at a reasonable price to others” and it’s going to be one hell of a burden to convince a court that this isn’t a reasonable price at any given day, much less when there ample examples in the market that charge more.
Another, more fundamental issue specific to the EU is that European courts really don’t like laws that look like they target a specific company or individual. The DMA’s issue is that it doesn’t just look like that, it outright broadcasts that it does that.
Apple had a decent chance at fighting the DMA as it currently exists, so to be quite honest, I expected them to make some basic concessions, await enforcement actions by the EC and then fight that tooth and nail.
Instead, to my utter surprise, they capitulated in nearly everything and then went above and beyond the DMA requirements.
The purpose of that is clear, to establish a very strong legal posture for the inevitable court case.
> The main hurdle for the EU (and the US for that matter) is IP and property rights. You can’t legislate your way around that without significant overhaul which would reverberate across all of commerce.
What?
Developing, compiling, distributing, and having users run an iOS app is not a "use of Apple's IP". The use of Xcode, SDKs, header files, etc is. What happens when an open-source SDK that is completely free of any Apple-copyrighted code comes around? What would the use of Apple's IP be then?
I ask this not as a gotcha, it’s a serious question.
There is no way to write an app that doesn’t use a single piece of Apple code.
Create a new project in Xcode, simply write print(“Hello, world!) right click on the print method, click “Jump to Definition” and you get to read Apple’s code.
To say nothing of all the boilerplate stuff (and more importantly all the stuff underneath it that is automatically created when you create a new project and that is necessary to run the app.
The open source SDK you talk about might be completely free of Apple’s code, but it most definitely makes use of Apple’s code.
> The open source SDK you talk about might be completely free of Apple’s code, but it most definitely makes use of Apple’s code.
It "makes use of Apple's code" in the sense that it calls iOS APIs. But the resulting binary wouldn't have Apple's IP, which is what matters for the purposes of copyright and patent law. When saying something "uses" an IP, we generally mean the exclusive rights granted to the holder by law. Merely interacting with an already-existing API on an already-existing copy of iOS is not "use".
If the opposite were true, all third-party aftermarket accessories for physical (patented) products that merely plugged in to the mechanisms and didn't implement them themselves would be illegal.
The way this always works is the law says “X”, then various parties come up with self serving interpretations of what “X” means, if they don’t mutually align they may go to a judge to figure out who’s definition of “X” will prevail.
It’s a dance, everybody knows the steps. Tech companies know the longer they can keep making money with their version of “X” the better - even if they know damn well they will lose when it goes to trial - which can take over a decade in some cases.
Microsoft practically invented the game, Google and Meta perfected it, and Apple is catching up.
I think the EU is going to have a hard time changing this, though. Because if Apple can't make money from licensing fees, they're asking Apple to spend all the engineering time developing APIs, xCode, etc. for free. They have the money, but in business it's not great to have a business unit operate without its own revenue or a path to profitability.
If you've ever worked in an engineering team in a regulated market, this is commonplace. Regulators aren't here to ensure you, the regulated party, can make money. They are in place to ensure the marketplace as a whole is fair(ish). Compliance is costly.
Except that this regulation only applies to so-called gatekeepers, so it doesn't affect 99.9% of the companies out there. Even if you made your own phone with it's own app store, until you have a sizable part of the market, you won't be a gatekeeper under the DMA.
A lot of sensible regulation provides escape hatches for smaller companies to avoid the huge costs of compliance. The exception is where there should be absolutely no exceptions, like medical regulation or privacy.
> they're asking Apple to spend all the engineering time developing APIs, xCode, etc. for free
I find such arguments more than absurd,
1. They have no issue doing that on macOS
2. Apple needs third party developers as much as the other way around. They are not doing this for free, they would sell a lot less devices if third party Apps weren't supported.
They already regulate how high credit card interchange fees can be, even though the banks had to spend money on building and maintaining the credit card infrastructure. They also regulate how high mobile roaming costs may be, even though cellular networks have cost hundreds of billions to build. Of course, they're only doing that because the interchange fees and roaming charges were abuse of market power and in no proportion to the cost of actually providing the service. Just like Apple's Core Tech Fee is.
So there's not going to be any problem with putting limits on the amount of money Apple can leech. Nor will there be any downside to doing it. Apple will not put any less effort into their platform or tooling even if such limits were in place. Nor is there any chance that Apple will abandon the EU market.
(If Apple was charging a nominal fee instead of a punitive one, they'd have a much better argument. But for Apple, it's not about the money they make from the technology fee. It's about making sure that the regulation can't actually achieve its purpose of promoting competition, because Apple will have smothered the competition in the crib.)
Apple's lawyers have been working hard to make it non-viable for third-party app stores while still complying with the law I guess. Sounds like this will be a no go in it's first incarnation and EU will have to come back with an even stricter version probably removing all control from Apple. EU does not fuck around when it comes down to it with things like this.
Another example: It used to be that telecom companies used to milk cross country calls and data within the EU. The competition to provide cheap calls between countries was basically not working. So EU made it a requirement that you should not pay any extra at all for international calls between EU countries, and whatever data package you bought at home works everywhere within the EU with no extra charges.
> So EU made it a requirement that you should not pay any extra at all for international calls between EU countries, and whatever data package you bought at home works everywhere within the EU with no extra charges.
Arguably that's not a new requirement, but simply the EU enforcing the existing single market rules.
> Before Intra-EU communications were capped, the average standard price of a fixed or mobile intra-EU call tended to be three times higher than the standard price of a domestic call. While the standard price of an intra-EU SMS was more than twice as expensive as a domestic one. In some cases the standard price of an intra-EU call was up to ten times higher than the standard price for domestic calls.
For how long? EU is also pretty good at coming after companies. Remember when Apple dodged switching from Lightning when micro-USB was a thing and now they're forced into USB-C?
What was the advantage to me as a consumer if a 2015 iPhone got USB-C? IMO, USB-C wasn’t an advantage over Lightning then. (USB-C was not yet a common connector and most Apple users already had Lightning cables or could get by with the one included with the phone. Apple users had 3 years of orientation-independent convenience before USB-C arrived.)
I still find plugging in the Lightning cable to be easier (less precise alignment needed) than a USB-C and by the time the iPhone 8 arrived with magnetic charging, any charging advantage to USB-C went away.
“Forced into”, as if apple hasn’t been producing literally every other items besides iphones with usb-c, based on their own choices.
Of course if there were a law like that, they will rather point their fingers at the EU, over their users blaming apple for the slight inconvenience of changing.
Apple has zero leverage here. First, they are a foreign company so there is no local sympathy like in the Epic case. Secondly, the EU is already pissed off with Apple, hence the DMA. Thirdly, even if Apple doesn’t care what the EU thinks, their shareholders surely do, since the EU has the capacity to inflict huge financial damage on Apple, via fines, import bans and/or much more punitive regulations.
IANAL, but this probably doesn't pass the requirement of the DMA to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. In many scenarios, these terms favor choosing the old terms where apps can only be distributed through Apple's App Store. In other words, Apple is using its gatekeeper position to benefit themselves, which is exactly what can't be done in the DMA.
They won't sign your store app and it won't install on anyone's phone. And they'll probably add any previously signed versions to a revocation list so existing installs of your store will be deleted immediately along with all the apps you distributed. That's the power of remaining a gatekeeper...
What? How do you think they support developing the OS, running security, notarizing and reviewing your apps etc.
This needs to be funded somehow.
I'm surprised there are commenters who have such a strong view - that they should just be able to access all the benefits of the iOS ecosystem that Apple has built over many years, and then have all that access for free too.
Apple sells hardware. They don't give away software for free, you (generally) need their hardware per their licensing agreements.
You have to pay Apple $99/year to develop software for their ecosystem.
I pay them for their hardware, I pay them to let me write software -- you want me to pay them when others use my software? What about when others view photos I take with my phone? Do they want a cut of that too?
How anyone can think Apple's stance here is reasonable is beyond me. I haven't paid Microsoft anything in over a decade, I wonder how they can afford to fund Windows development?
> One million free first annual installs. Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces. [0]
For alternative app stores specifically: "First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps."
It's not free for Apple to host free apps either. Free apps get subsidized by IAP and other paid apps. An alternate app store would subsidize the install cost for free apps with the money they make from their cut of IAP and paid apps.
Which is why the real solution is for a mechanism to install code on an iOS device 100% outside of Apple's control similar to side loading on Android.
I don't trust Apple at all with their capricious and arbitrary blocking of apps/updates. It was bad enough when it appeared to be mostly due to incompetence, but after what they did politically (and in concert with Google, Twitter and Facebook) to Parlor that's when any creditability they had for me in curating the app store went out the window. I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, when a company starts to go down that path it's a danger for all of us.
But why? Apple is providing the whole ecosystem, operating system, security, notarization etc - there are costs to be covered.
Of course there are costs incurred per install. Previously there were covered by a higher 30% fee on app costs. Now, with opening up the platform to alternative stores, the EU has pushed Apple to a per-install model.
So to me, this seems completely reasonable as a standard iPhone user.
I understand the security and performance of the platform costs more - that is why I use an iPhone not an Android.
As I understand this, no app developer is forced to change to the new terms:
> New Business Terms for Apps in the EU
Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. 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.
I don’t understand this at all, is this really how it will work now?
Even if you sell an App for 2€ that would mean you will lose all the income from it to fees in 4 years if you release at least one update per year that users install? I must be missing something?
I don’t think your missing something. This is Apple’s way of discouraging use of an alternative app store for popular apps, or alternatively, of encouraging subscription models.
> 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
emphasis added on and/or; it seems like Apple is being forced to break down fees according roughly to their costs (?). Maybe installs from altapp stores cost them some resources because they want to verify the notarization each time?
Apps don’t have to pay for notarization on MacOS, and nobody forces Apple to perform notarization in the first place. It’s also implausible that there would be any notable cost per install.
That is the point. This is malicious compliance, presumably they expect to get away with it while the legislative/legal systems in the EU spend years grinding through the process of figuring out how to punish Apple for it.
Yeah, why not? Stop selling the app when you hit 1 million and have a new version from a new company and just license the brand or whatever to the new one.
Companies do these kind of trickeries all the time. That's how they avoid paying taxes: by technically being within their rights. It doesn't matter if everyone knows what they are doing.
Apple's EU HQ is in Ireland and its totally selling the product from there, German companies are definitely don't sell restricted parts to Russia, they are selling it to Kazakhstan and Kazakstan suddenly had success with selling stuff to Russia, all the SV startups are incorporated in Delaware, all the Ships are Panaman and all kind of products that are assembled just the right way to avoid ban or taxes but can be reconfigured to do the banned thing.
Even at this very topic, Apple is trying to comply in such a way to circumvent actually allowing to freely install apps to iPhones.
This is an unacceptable comment for Hacker News. Just because you strongly disagree with this person on software funding doesn't give you any reason assume they disagree with...feeding the homeless?
Not sure what you're on about. It's actually illegal to feed the homeless in certain American cities and you can get fined for doing so. This is called an analogy.
It just means that the bar has been raised, no? There has been a certain accepted cost of doing business in the Apple sphere for years. They're just changing the price.
If you want to publish a retro-gaming emulator as a hobby/open-source project, you can’t do that on Apple’s app store. And on a third-party app store you’ll have to pay Apple millions once it becomes popular (which would seem likely).
Since apps are still subject to Apple’s review process even on third-party app stores, they are likely to reject this because it obviously circumvents the new business terms (if it doesn’t violate them outright).
Previously you only had to pay the yearly $99 for the developer account, and then could publish free apps to your heart’s content (subject to Apple’s app review process, of course).
I think you are underestimating how many apps get over 1M downloads. According to [1], the Google Play Store has over 34000 apps with 1M+ installs, I assume the number is similar for the App Store.
So if you have a popular free app, there is a good chance you will hit the 1M install threshold. This change is basically forcing you to monetize your app. Plenty of people can afford losing $99/year for having a free app that isn't monetized. Not many can afford losing several thousand per month.
The Core Technology Fee still only applies if you want to either
a) distribute outside the Apple App Store, or
b) pay the lower 17%/10% commission.
If you're already distributing the app for free, then you're not going to care about (b), so this only applies to apps that meet all three of the following criteria:
1. Free
2. Popular enough to significantly breach that 1M install threshold
3. Distributed through an alternative App Store
Anyone who has a popular free app out there right now doesn't need to change anything; they'll continue to have exactly the same expenses they had yesterday.
Maybe I'm misreading the original article, but it sounds like it would also apply to apps distributed only through the regular 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.
Only if they choose the “new” terms, they can stay on the existing terms if they want to distribute through the App Store, as it’s free so the commission change doesn’t matter.
Basically seems to kill off Facebook forcing people to a Meta App Store for the free FaceBook app (and thus not being subject to App Store review, which has stopped some of the more brutal privacy invasions they’ve tried)
Small fraction of users but a huge fraction of the market share (and revenue generation share). Being that the DMA was specifically targeting these two things it seems quite at odds with "A free app like Chrome must pay us millions if it wants to distribute itself instead of using the legacy terms deemed illegal". If they didn't allow legacy terms it'd have a bit more of a leg to stand for opening the markets, same as if it didn't apply to apps distributed via third party, but the way it is now seems a contentious combination.
Imagine the new attack vector: You have a mildly successful free/very cheap app. Your competitor starts advertising your app, pushing it up over the 1m threshold and forcing you to start charging (or increase your price) to pay the core charge.
There's also no 1MM install threshold if you list your app on an alternative App Store, which seems like it will kill the attractiveness of using a different storefront unless you're a developer with a an app that has a recurring subscription that's either a) just not allowed on Apple's storefront, and/or b) has an subscription price expensive enough that the $0.50 annual fee is less than the amount of commission you're avoiding from Apple.
> 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.
Sounds to me like developers have to pay the per user fee no matter where the app is distributed.
It's not, actually. It's the salaries of the engineers who work on the frameworks and OS that underpin the apps these developers are writing.
Are you proposing we should go back to charging users for software updates? Personally, I think it makes more sense to take a cut from other people doing business on top of the platform.
If they can't fund OS development without their App Store profits, which I highly doubt, then they should charge more for their OS.
It cannot be a valid argument against regulation that your monopoly product supports other nonprofitable parts of your business.
Such constructions are hurting competition and maintaining the status quo. It is very difficult to compete against a product which is priced unsustainably cheap.
Profit from the iPhone business alone should be much more than enough to pay those OS/framework developers since Apple claims that iOS and iPhone are indivisible/unsubstitutable parts to each other.
If Apple inexplicably chooses to sell iDevices so cheaply that they can't afford to pay the people who build the software for it, that's their mistake. The EU isn't forcing them to do that, neither are app developers. They've had years to remedy any pricing mistakes they made in the past and price their hardware appropriately.
They also pull in billions of dollars every year from their 30% cut on gambling/gacha games, and do almost nothing to earn that (those games have to provide their own updater/CDN because the Apple/Google ones aren't good enough, and those games don't meaningfully rely on Apple/Google for things like quality assurance or marketing.) Apple will be fine even if their Europe-specific cut is halved.
Claiming they're going to suffer or be unable to pay employees is simply not supported by any evidence.
There's a difference between the one-time upfront cost of purchasing a device, and the recurring cost of supporting it with software updates (which is, in the most recent case, sometimes mandated). It's not a "pricing mistake".
You can bake that into the list price of the device based on how long you offer warranty coverage and/or updates. Every device vendor is already doing this unless they're completely clueless.
Yes it is a pricing mistake. If I only use the built-in apps, Apple will earn nothing from my app usage, but they still have to provide security updates. And that should be the end of it.
Yet they managed to do this for years for free when they had their walled garden up and and supposedly offered so much value to developers with their app store and such
Would it be possible to create multiple separate apps each having max 1M users?
This Firefox1 app would host first million, then be removed from store but still provide updates. It would be replaced by Firefox2 app. And so?
Is there some clause in the contracts that says apps from same source will count as single app, no matter how many times they are uploaded as separate app?
It could easily fall under a fraud or abuse clause. If you decide to play games, Apple would be more than happy to pull their authorization and ban you out of spite. Now none of your apps work.
It's unlikely but they could also pull a google and ban any company who hires you in the future.
Maybe not side projects, but I'm running Android and Kde Connect, Home Assistant, Element or Mastodon are all listed as having more than 1 million install. I can't imagine these FOSS projects paying any significant amount of money just to distribute their free apps.
OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every month to Apple.
>>OsmAnd has more than 10 million installs, VLC more than 100 million. Can you imagine the fees? They obviously don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars on hand to pay every month to Apple.
VideoLAN (VLC developer) is a non-profit so they are exempt from the Core Technology Fee even if they distribute on an alternate app store.
"OsmAnd is developed by a Dutch private limited company, OsmAnd B.V. located in Amstelveen, the Netherlands"[1] so it looks like they would be subject to the CTF if they choose to distribute from an alternate app store or utilize a non-Apple payment processor; or they could stick to the existing business terms and continue as-is in the Apple App Store.
Afaik there are currently no exceptions to apple's 30% fee. There are some apps, like netflix, that dont have to provide a link to subscribe, but I think thats the biggest exception.
And there won't be since Google just got caught giving Spotify a lower rate and now face anti-trust issues. That doesn't mean Apple doesn't give certain apps certain permissions. AFAIK, Apple gives Google special permission to enable VP9/AV1 formats decoding [0] and that's just what we know of.
Whether you like it or not, we're heading towards a future where Apple and Google choose who wins and who loses. A good app built on merit will never be able to compete.
The Epic v. Apple trial showed that no one got special deals. And Epic v. Google did show Google gave many companies special deals, like Spotify. Ironically that played a big part with the jury deciding against Google.
What are the differences between using AVPlayer and MPV?
AVPlayer is a system player component delivered by Apple. It provides best efficiency, performance and system integrations, but number of playable videos formats is limited. This means for Invidious/Piped videos the maximum resolution you can play with it is 1080p. There's no way to play higher resolution files as they are not provided in the right formats. Obviously, modern Apple devices are more than capable to hardware decode and play these formats. And in fact, Apple seems to be giving special entitlement to Google that allows them to enable VP9/AV1 formats decoding. Just remember that next time you hear how Apple treats all developers equally.
It’s from 2020 so it might’ve changed but it proves Apple gives certain apps special privileges. Who knows which other apps are given privileges and to what extent?
I think Apple will be a lot more hurt by not having Youtube on their devices than the other way around. Youtube is ubiquitous and has no alternative. If I was Alphabet, the price would be 0.
Not likely. I haven't had YouTube installed on my device in 18 months (mostly because of Google's insistence on using it as an authentication verifier).
YouTube works in browser, but the native iOS app offers a much more polished experience than the mobile web UI, especially for actually browsing the library.
It can ask for permissions like push notifications, I can't install ad-blockers on it, and they otherwise get more control over it. They even seem to intentionally treat web users a little better, cause I just got a full-sized homepage ad in the app for TikTok of all things, with a download button. The site doesn't have that, and I made sure to disable my blocker. Maybe they consider app users more captive of an audience, or they simply bring changes to it first that are generally about further monetization.
Not a huge deal though. In the past, pre-iOS-10 Safari was immune to the "no background playback" rule the app had, and before that, the site had no preroll ads while the app did, so it was a clearer difference.
> if Roblox, Youtube and Netflix went Android only then I'd be replacing all of our iPads with Android Tablets post-haste
Sure. Most wouldn’t. YouTube and Netflix would lose tens of billions of present value overnight. Hell, Apple might capture a good fraction of that surplus.
Yeah sure, people will give up on YouTube and Netflix to use iOS, that's not going to happen. They'll suffer through using Safari to access those and that'll reduce the perceived value of iOS devices for future purchases since it will be seen as clunky and not seamless.
Not being able to use YouTube properly is also one of the reasons (among others) of why Windows mobile failed.
Youtube is a monopoly and there's no way around it.
> they have a 100% market share on this kind of format
YouTube videos being the format?
Google owns YouTube. Google pays Apple tens of billions to keep its search front and centre. If Google thought YouTube had the leverage you do, wouldn’t you think they’d try swinging that around?
Yeah sure there's a few countries where it's not the case, that's why I mentioned that but it's rare.
People can usually replace the app X with an app Y but there's a few apps which are categorically needed on a phone otherwise it hurts the phone itself. Banks & government apps are part of those and Youtube is one as well.
Those are the ones really preventing a third company to join in.
> 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.
You can stick with the existing terms, or switch to the new ones (which is when the core technology fee kicks in) -- you only have to switch to the new ones if you want to use your own payment processor or distribute on another app store.
So they've basically made distributing popular free apps on an alternative app store really unappealing.
"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. "
Yeah apparently they will be according to the article…
“ 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.”
One thing EU regulators could do is to say "ok but you have to charge the iOS user for it instead of the developer". Then if users accept it - fine, let them have it.
The same should go for 30% appstore fee: make it explicit and add it to the user's bill: "1$ for the developer and your card is also charged separately with 30c Apple tax".
That would actual competition for the best platform real.
This only applies if these developers move to the new terms it looks like. So these large apps can stay with their existing setups and not pay the fee.
This only applies to install numbers within the EU.
It’s exactly what many have said Apple should do to get payment for usage of their IP: split it from the commission.
So now you can pay separately for the IP, separately for payment processing and separately for App Store services or a combination of all of the above.
As far as I can tell, it's a bit more subtle than that. What Apple is doing is offering developers either the old deal (with all its now-illegal restrictions) or the new deal that removes the restrictions but adds the punitive Core Technology Fee. The intent is obviously for nobody with a large app to take the new deal, but for Apple to be able to claim that they've lowered the App Store fees and made allowed alternate stores.
I think Apple is delusional in thinking that the EU will buy into this scheme, but who knows.
If they give in "without a fight" by following the spirit of the law (or even the letter) they will use a lot of income.
Companies are not our friends (not our enemies either) and only form a fleeting alliance if the goal of makeing money aligns with the interest of the user.
This is what I came here to find out. So it seems Apple will still get their cut. Seems they are nerfing things to make the existing App Store more appealing.
But I guess Tim Sweeney won in the EU. He gets his new AppStore so he can charge his own commission on gems and fake tokens.
And game streaming seems interesting I guess we will get Xbox streaming gaming on the Apple platform after all.
50 cents per install per year is hilarious trolling from Apple. Who wants to place bets on who will sue them first over this detail? Will it be the EU? Epic Games?
* Reduced commission: 30% -> 17%
* Payment processing fee: No fee to Apple
Some big mobile games may opt in this option by removing IAP and using their own payment processor, if "update"s are not considered as "install"s. Looks like Apple is desperate on keeping those apps in their app store?
*First annual install.* This is the first time an app is installed by an account in the EU in a 12-month period. After each first annual install, the app may be installed any number of times by the same account for the next 12 months with no additional charge. A first annual install may result from an app’s first-time install, a reinstall, or an update from any iOS app distribution option — including the App Store, an alternative app marketplace, TestFlight, an App Clip, volume purchases through Apple Business Manager and Apple School Manager, and/or a custom app.
*One million free first annual installs.* Membership in the Apple Developer Program includes one million first annual installs per year for free for apps distributed from the App Store and/or alternative marketplaces.
*Fee for each first annual install over one million.* Developers will pay a Core Technology Fee of €0.50 for each first annual install over one million in the past 12 months.
Eh, we know from the DoJ trial Google is already sending trucks full of cash down to Cupertino every day for search defaults. This may just add a little extra overhead on the next “protection” payment.
However the economics have changed now. It’s no longer practically free to support iOS. So some companies could make a reasonable argument that supporting iOS is too expensive when only a fraction of their customers do in app purchases from Apple hardware. So from Apple’s perspective, they now have more to lose in not making deals. While app developers have more to lose in supporting Apple.
This might just tip the scales into forcing Apple to negotiate on more than just app permissions.
There is significant cost associated with complying with the ever increasing demands of the EU. I have seen this personally. It makes sense that they have to recuperate this somehow.
Europe has a fairly blase attitude towards compliance costs in general.
For example, the official EC report on the cost impact of the EU AI Act finds that, for businesses who already have a Quality Management System (QMS), "An enterprise employing 50 persons would pay roughly EUR 159,000-EUR 202,000 for upgrading and maintaining the QMS, and bringing one AI product to market." (Notably, that estimate excludes costs of legal review.)
Around 200000 EUR for one product making use of AI would be seen as a heavy burden on startups and small enterprises in much of the world, but as far as I can tell, it's considered not particularly noteworthy by the EC.
Apple's cost structure announced today probably needs to be assessed in that context. Tech companies doing business in Europe are already used to various additional compliance-related costs of doing business.
Apple chooses this level of control for the iOS store. Being told your previous version was illegal doesn't entitle you to recoup the costs of compliance.
The use of language here, such as the word "illegal", is a psychological trick. It's an intentional conflation with past behavior/the status quo with being "immoral" (as illegal implies immoral).
Apple is never gonna financially recover from these impossible demands.
Come on now, that is utter nonsense. Apple has simply found a way to make even more money out of what seemed like a bad deal for them. They are not recuperating anything, they are increasing revenue.
> Apple is never gonna financially recover from these impossible demands.
That's not at all what I said. These regulations are increasing the cost of business in the EU. I'd much rather have those costs paid by those who democratically (?) decided these regulations that those in other countries who decided otherwise.
This is from a US small non-profit, and small for-profit operating with way less than $1M in funding, and not necessarily intending to deal with people in the EU context: Not every company has money to pay for the hours to ensure they are GDPR compliant, so they opt out of serving EU clients altogether. It's not always a problem forever, but it's definitely a blocker sometimes.
How is it any different than an EU company complying with Russian/US/whatever laws?
International laws have always been crazy expensive, if anything, being able to (mostly) target quite a big market by only making it EU-aware is more of a plus, than a negative.
That’s the thing: when I come onto a project they might not even know, nor have the hours to allocate to figure it out, and I ain’t working for free to figure it out.
Let me make this clearer: I'm not trying to do anything but work a job. These aren't my apps, and it's not a "me problem", but a them problem. I'm just the third party messenger relaying anecdotes.
Cookie disclosure/consent can be an issue, and again, sometimes companies would rather just not serve EU clients altogether than build a simple disclosure and not set any cookies. Not saying that's good or bad, but that's just what it is.
If you don't want to share what these apps are doing yet insist EU laws are troublesome, you won't be surprised for people to interpret them as doing something unneeded or anti user instead of just some "legal complexity barrier".
The apps could be perfectly fine, its just that people will speculate.
You’re happy with only large tech giants existing then. Because lots of regulations are just barriers to entry and allow the existing players to keep playing
The problem is the same argument also works in reverse: few regulations just make it easier for larger players to block smaller players from operating via dishonest business practices.
Ultimately existing players always have the advantage.
As a side note: the startup world is thriving in Europe. So EU regulations can’t be that high of a barrier ;)
Personally, I don't think this works in real life. Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want choose new market options if/when they becomes available, and do not need a nanny state to pick winners and losers. If anything, excessive regulation and legal hurdles impede and prevent this market force from working as it should. Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize? They are incentivized to offer a less than ideal product while also lobbying for increased or maintained regulation to ensure the status quo. This isn't capitalism, but cronyism.
Also, which startups are thriving in Europe with global appeal? Genuinely, un-sarcastically, curious.
> Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want choose new market options if/when they becomes available,
That almost never happens
> Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize?
Infrastructure costs is why you don’t see hundreds of competitors. New companies either need the capital to build new infrastructure, in which case they are usually more expensive due to economies of scale, or they have to resell someone else’s infrastructure. In which case they can only be as good as the monopolies.
The ironic thing is in the UK there aren’t any monopolies in ISP. There is lots of healthy competition. So your example regarding deregulation proves the opposite of your point.
Take the last link, for example, United Airlines scores low in customer satisfaction yet people still fly with them. Facebook might be hated yet people still use it.
Most people either too lazy or too cheap to boycott businesses they don’t like. And that’s assuming they even have a choice, because often there really isn’t much of an alternative to choose from.
That’s exactly my point. They don’t have to, yet they do.
Hence why you’re wrong in claiming that people are principled enough to boycott businesses at a scale that makes any difference to that business.
You claim that badly behaved businesses would just lose the custom and yet all the evidence out there proves that just doesn’t happen. Or at least not to the extent that amounts to anything more than a rounding error on their books.
I had said that, “Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want [to] choose new market options if/when they become available”.
So you agree then?
And ya know what, I think that’s BS: you definitely have a choice and if you think you can’t follow through you’re weak. You definitely don’t need to use facebook for anything and you don’t need to fly either. It’s a choice, mate, and if you don’t think you have a choice you’re weak.
Normally I’d be fine to agree to disagree, but you only have to look at the last 100 years of consumer habits to see exactly what I’m talking about. This isn’t something that’s nuanced. It’s clear as plain as day.
It's not like these companies are trying to steal your private data. They just don't see working through legal compliance as worth the squeeze — especially when they are young and don't have the resources to comply properly.
edit:
> worthy of the European market.
Also, what an entitled, elitist thing to say. Maybe the US would be better off pulling out of Nato and letting Europe alone after all.
I think you responded to the wrong comment by accident, because nowhere did the parent user say that the companies they worked with were trying to take users' data, or had trouble with privacy-related EU law.
Don't forget to double-check to make sure you're responding to the right comment!
What makes me almost certain that the DMA Commission will not approve of most of the requirements is the following reporting requirement on the DMA compliance report[1] that Apple will be required to file with the regulator:
"n) where applicable, all actions taken to protect integrity, security or privacy (e.g., data access, data retention policies) pursuant to the relevant provisions in Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 and why these measures are strictly necessary and justified and there are no less
restrictive means to achieve these goals"
As a bonus, just to really hammer it in:
"o) any type of market analysis or testing (in particular A/B testing), business user surveys or consumer surveys or end user consent rates that have been carried out to estimate the expected impact
of the measure on the objectives of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925"
This is just such a sad state of affairs. In the end nobody wins and everyone loses - apple and developers.
Now Apple needs to provide the APIs for alternative markets which is a waste of time as well as making more vulnerability vectors and potentially confusing users. And app developers who decided for whatever reason to use their own distribution channel would still have to pay apple on every purchase.
"For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates"
Jesus. Not only is Apple serving us a shit sandwich with this press release, they're telling us it's filet mignon, for our own good.
Is anyone who has been in tech for the past 25 years or so not completely disillusioned with the state of tech as a business? The "tech optimism" of the late 90s seems like another universe. It feels like every single big tech company is only worried about their business and profits, service to the user be damned. They're all "evil", rotten to the core, 100%, across the board.
New technology (and I'm not talking about how we usually refer to it as Internet/silicon tech these days) used to be about making people's lives better. I think the piece of tech that I most value these days is probably my dishwasher. So much other tech is just actively hostile - think of the HP CEO's recent announcement that we should all owe HP money per page. Like there is a person on the planet who wants that.
As someone who's worked in tech since the .com boom, my disillusionment is on the verge of depression. I'm honestly ashamed at the forces I've contributed to, even if only a minuscule bit.
I don't know what tech optimism of the 90's you're talking about. That was the era when people called Microsoft "Micro$oft" because they thought it was so greedy and evil.
I don't see anything having changed at all. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We were going to solve all the world's problems with file sharing via the internet. (Oh, to be young again...) Tech naiveté is perhaps a better description but it did exist, especially in San Francisco.
"During the late 1990s dot-com boom, when the speculative bubble gave rise to claims that an era of "permanent prosperity" had arrived, techno-utopianism flourished, typically among the small percentage of the population who were employees of Internet startups and/or owned large quantities of high-tech stocks. With the subsequent crash, many of these dot-com techno-utopians had to rein in some of their beliefs in the face of the clear return of traditional economic reality."
You could literally do whatever you desired on windows. Which is the only thing I want from iphones. There has never been a good reason not to have some form of opt in root on the phone aside from apple greed.
In the 90's you virtually couldn't buy a computer without Windows because Microsoft forced manufacturers to pay them for Windows for every computer they built and sold, no matter whether that computer contained Windows or not.
And you can still install whatever you want on Macs.
Just saying, let's not look at the 90's as some paragon of openness.
I literally could buy computers without windows in the 90-s. Probably 2 or 3 of them. And you could always build your rig from scratch - and no windows then.
They were extremely hard to find, and they weren't any cheaper. You still paid for Windows even if you didn't receive it (even if you didn't realize that at the time).
Of course you could build your own, but that was for hobbyists, not regular consumers.
I'm talking about the rise of the Internet, and the idea that the Internet would bring us all closer together.
Regarding Microsoft, recall that Google's "Don't be evil" mantra was specifically about contrasting them with Microsoft. That is, the idea that Microsoft used all these dirty tricks to gain prominence (which they did, and which is well documented) but that Google was going to be different and was just going to win by having the better product. And I think most people were optimistic about this, and for 10-15ish years I think Google behaved this way until the demands of "forever growth" capitalism eventually took over.
> and the idea that the Internet would bring us all closer together.
Well that part happened! I'm so much more connected to people and knowledge than I was in the 90's.
But I don't remember any optimism that companies would become less greedy. Google's "don't be evil" was an idiosyncrasy -- literally the only company saying something like that, because they were raking in cash and could afford to (until they couldn't afford to anymore). It wasn't a trend.
I heard that Apple now supports WebPush. So you should be able to use this. You may need to set up the subscription in Safari but IIUC after clicking the notification you could be redirected to an app.
Separate any discussion about the "tone" of the article, could someone who is better at reading between the lines better than I explain the changes to Out-Of App Store payments?
Is it a 10-max 20% fee to Apple, no matter the distributor, in the EU? Or are those rules only for the App Store, and anything else won't be touched by commissions to Apple?
It sounds like the percent fee is for apps downloaded from the app store plus the 3% if you use apple payment processing. Then theres a .5 euro annual fee per user over 1 million no matter which market the app was downloaded from.
I’m curious how iOS 17.4 may affect side loading currently.
“ These safeguards will be in place when users download iOS 17.4 or later, beginning in March, and include:
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.
App installation sheets — that use information from the Notarization process to provide at-a-glance descriptions of apps and their functionality before download, including the developer, screenshots, and other essential information.
Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers.
Additional malware protections — that prevent iOS apps from launching if they’re found to contain malware after being installed to a user’s device.”
Possibly stupid question, but if I install an "alternative app store", approved by Apple, can i not just use that store to install yet another app store (assuming there would be one) that isn't approved by apple and doesn't care about their restrictions (and doesn't pay apple anything?)
I suspect they're charging $0.50 on alternative app stores as well as their own to be able to give something during the inevitable negotiations with the EU: "OK we'll stop taxing other stores, just let us keep taxing ours"
Straight out of the claim-enormous-damages playbook to anchor the figure higher.
> With hardware, the EU can demand adherence to standards like USB-C.
Not picking sides here, just curious; if a better standard comes along, do we all have to wait for the EU to turn it into a law before companies can change to that new standard?
Governments have enforced standards for a long time. There's always that tradeoff. Standardization has benefits, and at some point the government says that a standard is "good enough".
You can install whatever plug you want on your device - as long as it also has a USB-C plug on it too.
So if you come up with a truly revolutionary new plug and the market at large adopts it, then there's no reason the EU won't approve of it being the new standard.
The point of the standards is to ensure consumers aren't being fucked over by proprietary plugs that are incompatible with all the other devices out there, like what Apple was doing, not to enforce some arbitrary limit that says USB-C is the final form factor plug we'll ever be using
Maybe this has already been answered in a downstream thread, but I think it deserves its own thread... For applications delivered via a 3rd party store, how is Apple going to (a) identify them, and (b) count their installs so that it can charge its 0.50 per install fee?
> 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
Shouldn’t it be pretty trivial to track installs of Apple is notarizing every app? Even if the installs are from other sources?
For a marketplace to install an app they call the MarketplaceKit installApp() api. Apple can track this as it 1) then points to a url of the marketplace storage 2) the item is notarized and contains thus developer id that needs to pay
Very blatantly trying to circumvent the spirit of the law. Nothing a lawsuit for 10% of global annual revenues can't solve, though. I truly hope the EU puts down the law here and let Apple know how the find out-phase of their little gambit feels.
Does anyone do anything but comply with the letter of the law? I think most companies do their best to continue doing business the way they have been. Most entities will take the path that benefits them the most.
The law can't (and shouldn't) dictate ethics or morality. The spirit of the law is undefined, it's abstract and ambiguous. If an entity isn't judged for obeying the letter of the law, how can we have faith that we'll all be treated fairly? It's easy to call foul when its someone you don't like doing something you don't like.
If a compliance law doesn't result in the compliance we desire, the law was poorly written.
Spirit of the law is defined. It's the first handful of sentences of any European regulation. And courts can and do rule in favour of lesser parties. If the legislature has made a clerical mistake in writing the law, the court can disregard the mistake (a technicality) and rule in the lines of the spirit of the law.
They are way too kind, they should disable iMessage and iCloud for any alternative App Store due to "security issues" and call it a day, we don't need a meta store, they should have just let us install IPAs to avoid all that
You can already do all that on macos yet its somehow not a security issue and just how computers work in general there, and is somehow this huge security issue on mobile by apples marketing of the issue. The cognitive dissonance makes no sense. You’d have to gaslight everyones experienced with personal computing since its inception to make it make sense. Its solely about locking down the device to enforce their 30% cut because it started out that way. If they released desktop OSs today and not decades ago they’d try and pull this crap too
Yea and if the UX and safety are actually better consumers will pick the better, safer option in the whole. It’s like wow I have my entire life’s financial documents on my Mac but somehow downloading Firefox via Safari on my iPhone is so risky and unsolvable.
Are they going to explain why this is only coming to the very latest version of iOS? They still operate the same appstore on devices that can't run that iOS version. Devices which still even get security updates occasionally.
I suspect that the USB-C law, the DMA only requires new releases to comply. The iPhone SE, for instance, didn’t need to comply with the USB-C mandate as its an existing product.
There's a lot of talk about Apple trying to circumvent this, but there actually are some good things from this. For instance, Firefox on Mobile can now use the Gecko engine instead of WebKit! (I think it's still Gecko?)
This is the epitome of malicious compliance, and it doesn't even seem very compliant in how the "core technology fee" and the built-in hard dependency on Apple notarizing is handled.
> This change is a result of the DMA’s requirements, and means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage.
How will users be able to understand the options in front of them unless they are presented with it in the first place?
It makes Apple look bad overall to me; what's worse for Apple is that I'm a dev: they're supposed to be making themselves look good to people like me so that I'm attracted to their platform, but their churlishness is putting me off.
My micro-ISV stopped shipping an iOS app a few years ago when Safari's support for PWAs made it viable to reimplement our app as a PWA so that we no-longer needed to deal with App Store hassle (faffing around with a Mac Mini we'd only use a few times a year, confusing certificates/entitlements/etc, not to mention the capriciously enforced store app review policies).
...but I'm probably just being nostalgic for the early days of indie iOS apps. Those times are long gone, perhaps Apple actually isn't interested in attracting small devs to their platform anymore?
There are literally thousands of options for configuring your device in the Preferences app. Should we put all of them in front of the user's face the first time they set up their phone? How would they know those options exist otherwise?
Knowing that you can configure your phone's behavior should be a basic point of technology literacy. I know that it isn't at 100% today, but what percent of users are now going to have yet another forced decision to make before using their phone for the first time, just so a minority of technology illiterate users can be "educated".
Apple themselves don't seem to have a problem with displaying a red notification dot/badge on the "Settings" app to anyone who doesn't set up any card in Apple Pay on their new devices, at least.
> There are literally thousands of options for configuring your device in the Preferences app. Should we put all of them in front of the user's face the first time they set up their phone?
This is an absurd comparison. The choice of picking the default web browser, a complex pieces of critical software on everyone's mobile device, is categorically different than almost every single one of the other preferences on the device. You'd have to be completely insane to claim that e.g. the preference of whether a double-tapping space on the soft keyboard should insert a period is remotely comparable to choosing the default web browser.
It would've been so nice if the EU had required there be an automated way to choose Accept All and Only Necessary options. They could've even reused the existing DNT header!
A Berlin court ruled that DNT counts as an opt out. Linkedin was the defendant that lost, but it is a precedent. There are also talks of outright banning targeted advertising in its entirety and only allowing other forms such as contextual ads.
> […] enabling developers to use browser engines, other than WebKit
I'm afraid this announcement will turn out to be disastrous for the open web as we know it. Even if some enthusiasts now will be able to use Firefox proper, the real change is that WebKit usage will more than half over night. After this I guess the rendering engine market share will be roughly 80/20 Chromium/Webkit with Gecko as some rounding error.
For how long will it be defensible for the average company to test their site on anything but Chromium?
> the real change is that WebKit usage will more than half over night.
No it won’t.
The majority of “normal” users aren’t even aware their “chrome” app isn’t real chrome, so why would there be a mass install of a different browser? Some will yep but the mainstream aren’t going to change their habits over this. Your average person isn’t going “damn I wish I could have a different rendering engine on my phone”.
Over a longer period of time we’ll see some interesting changes, but nothing is going to move the needle in the first few months or even first year.
Based on the data I've seen, about 15-20% of iOS users on mainstream popular (top ≈30) websites in Sweden use Chrome. I'm not sure how representative this is of all of EU. Those 15-20% will be "lost" overnight, or as soon as Chrome drops Webkit on iOS (which is what I meant by overnight).
Maybe it was pessimistic of me to assume Chrome will more than double its user base with the new browswer-picker-modal "overnight". But I would be surprised if it's not noticeable. Normal people will see it and go "Oh that's the logo I click to get the internet on the PC in the study, let's try that, maybe all my football bookmarks will be synced".
It's not unreasonable to say that once they can, Google will issue an update to Chrome that replaces the WebKit version with the Blink version wholesale.
That whole group applies (as far as I can tell) only to EU users.
I don't use Chrome (Brave - I know, it's still Chromium) but every chance they get Google tries to get me to switch to Chrome proper.
Am I crazy, or does this mean the possibility of actually having WebXR on Apple devices in the not-so-distant future (without relying on Mozzila's outdated WebXR Viewer app)?
AVP will have a version of Safari with WebXR support behind a flag. It will be interesting to see what happens to anyone who runs a service like that and if/how Apple will come out for their pound of flesh. At this point I am surprised they don't charge telcos for the privilege of offering phone services to what Apple seems to consider a wholly owned and exclusive customer base.
Hey I’m confused, why does everyone hate Apple now? Did I miss a memo? I like their computers and phones. I’m not an iOS developer. Do I still need to get on this band wagon?
So if Mozilla wanted to ship Firefox with Gecko on iOS, they would need to maintain that, but only for the EU, while maintaining a WebKit version for all other markets. Oof.
Can anybody explain: do the possibilities of alternate distribution modes and fees (optionally) apply to all developers worldwide or only to EU based developers? I.e. is it developer based or App based?
And furthermore, I - as an EU based developer - have an App that is currently distributed worldwide. After agreeing to the alternate fees, they are only applied to the portion of sales from EU customers. Customers in the rest of the world are handled with the standard fees?
One of the requirements for third party App Store use by developers is maintaining a standby letter of credit of 1M euros from an A rated financial institution
Edit: was mistaken, this is a requirement for the operator of a third party App Store.
If I buy a product from company A, then want to use it to do business with company B, then what does company A have to do with it? Am I not the owner of my device?
I like the aggression. This is how Apple has how always worked. Difference is these days you don't have the iconoclast high vis leader who's announcing these policies and a rationale. Just have Apple -- the machine -- doing it, same as it's ever done.
If Steve Jobs was still around there might be a PR blitz with some YouTube videos of him doing a very persuasive ad about why the EU is wrong. And why Apple is right. Hahaha! :)
Whoever was in charge of the language for this did a great job. I know some may disagree, but if I were Apple that’s exactly how I would word this announcement.
Just imagine Microsoft charging $1 for every .exe installer clicked on in Windows 95.
Apple's total failure to build popular new products has forced it to defend/grow it's services revenue in unethical and anti-user ways. The only winners here are $aapl stock holders and at great cost to global progress and fairness.
Tim Cook of all people should sympathize with developers everywhere getting it in the ass without consent.
Yes, but these extensions work by intercepting the search results to your default search engine e.g. google and then redirectin that to kagi.com.
For example you type in "hacker news" it will first redirect to https://google.com/search?q=hacker%20news the Kagi extension will intercept this and redirect you th https://kagi.com/search?q=hacker%20news but this is often a hit and miss and the Kagi extensions had/has many problems. Which all could be easier if one could just select Kagi as a search engine natively in Safari.
I think this is an interesting by Apple. They bid to remain the gatekeeper, ensuring a degree of control against malware on the platform. Either the EU says yes, or when the EU says no, Apple can tell consumers who are cross because they have been infested with a nasty "well, we wanted wanted to provide protection, but we weren't allowed to - tough luck"
€0.50 for each first annual install per year is extremely expensive for many applications to handle. Especially if people just do installs to check and remove.
We had this discussion with Unity already.
Could be ok for fortnite though, epic should be pretty happy.
Also, who needs apple pay, Poland uses blik payments everywhere and it is just fine (and you have to autorise each payment with an alert from your bank app).
So obviously the new terms are worse for almost all business cases. That said, it's interesting to look at cases where they might be better.
If you have a F2P game app averaging 50€ revenue per user per year and you introduce a limitation to 1M users, you can avoid the Core Technology Fee and end up with 0€ fees, as opposed to 15M€ yearly fees under the current terms.
If I'm reading it correctly, it would reduce the 30% fee to 17% unless you only distribute your app on third party app stores.
> Reduced commission — iOS apps on the App Store will pay a reduced commission of either 10 percent (for the vast majority of developers, and subscriptions following their first year) or 17 percent on transactions for digital goods and services.
I'm also not sure what the 10% fee applies to. Apple doesn't charge a fee if you're purchasing physical goods, only digital goods (that's why you can buy a paperback book on the Amazon app but you can't buy a Kindle book on the app). Isn't everything that could be purchased through an in app purchase or subscription a digital good or service?
The current commission rates are 15% or 30%, with the latter applying to sales greater than $1M in revenue. I believe those rates are reducing to 10 and 17% respectively.
If the arduousness of setting up a store, and complying with all the various components of that is a stick, this is the carrot - we'll charge you less for keeping in the App Store.
Do these changes apply only within the geographical borders of the EU, or do they apply to EU citizens everywhere? EU data protection laws, if I'm not mistaken, apply to all EU citizens, so I'd imagine that these do too. If that's the case, I wonder how Apple plans to selectively enable access based on citizenship.
Of course this is only available in the EU. Why would Apple compromise its monopoly position everywhere else? Just like how Windows also only allows you to override Edge in the EU.
It's starting to get on my nerves that these basic freedoms are being locked to specific regions. It's obvious why it happens, but it upsets me as a consumer.
Looking forward to being required to use Chrome for basic browsing.
I already see numerous sites that with chrome variations on the old "we only support IE", but at least until now devs had to at least allow at least one other browser. Now they'll just say "here's a link explaining how to install chrome".
Which we know from the IE dominated era does not matter, people just switch to the browser they have to use. The overwhelming majority of users do not know what a user agent string is, let alone how to change it they just see an increasing number of sites saying "you need to use IE/chrome".
Moreover, again from the IE era - and we already see this with chrome - people make their sites work in IE/Chrome and then label any browser doing something different as broken so as people are increasingly forced to use chrome the degree to which spoofing does not work steadily increases.
It would be cool, if Apple extended this (or a similar new scheme) worldwide. Then it would be possible to rigorously throw out all garbage and badly implemented Apps from its own store, i.e. make it real shiny quality. Any rejected developer may then still publish their Apps in alternate ways.
> iOS apps on the App Store will pay a reduced commission of either 10 percent (for the vast majority of developers, and subscriptions following their first year) or 17 percent on transactions for digital goods and services.
So we’ll still not be able to purchase Kindle books from the app, it seems.
Is the "Core Technology Fee" applied to free Apps?
Example: I make a free App that gets very popular but has a rather seasonal character. Then there is a possibility, that many users will reinstall the App each year for a short time. Then I would have to pay the 50ct per install each year?
If I were in Apple's shoes, I would have taken another tack...
'Your iPhone is currently in Apple-only mode. To allow installation of apps not reviewed by Apple, you must disable this mode. Doing so requires a device reset and some apps may only function in Apple only mode'.
It's an interesting idea, but that ends up being a tech support nightmare for Apple. Some website or random friend says "Download this App - you just have to switch into non-Apple mode" and your non-tech-savvy friend doesn't have the experience to consider this suspect. Apple has to deal with that rather than the website or the friend.
I can't test my web app on safari as apple won't let install mac os on any other PC.
They won't even release safari for other os like android and windows.
Now those in non EU countries won't be able to acess other browser's too which will present similar challenge.
So I want to release an open source software app that does a better job at tracking browser history. The frontend and backend are both open source. However, I want to charge money to use my backend if they don't wanna run own. Could I be impacted by this?
I love how they keep crying all over the news about LE SECURITY RISKS!!11 yeah man, every single person knows there's security risks in anything online, don't care.
Do you also complain about security risks related to roads hence why you don't even cross a road?
I’m confused at the all comments here that suggest Apple didn’t vet these changes with the EU before announcing. Tim Cook met with the EU regulators at Apple Park last week. The changes that are being implemented have been in the works for literally years.
This is the point. Neither the EU legislators nor Apple Execs have time to waste on a casual meeting. Assuming that it was not about compliance is kind of ridiculous.
Having a meeting about compliance != vetting changes before announcing.
For example:
* Apple says "here's our proposed new framework." EU regulators say "We don't like it." Apple replies "Too bad, we're going to do it anyway, and we are confident we are in line with your regulations." EU regulators say "If you do that, we'll sue you." Apple replies, "OK, we have good lawyers." End of meeting.
* Apple asks the EU for more specific details on how the EU will approach various provisions, without actually revealing any concrete details of what they were planning.
* Apple requests the meeting with the EU regulators, to reassure them they are going to take action before the March 4th deadline and that they have a detailed plan in place to meet the new regulations, but then does not actually reveal any specific details in the meeting and instead talks only in generalities.
These are all possible contents of such a meeting. Just because you know they had a meeting on the subject of the new regulations, does not mean you can assume Apple was vetting their changes and getting EU approval before announcing. There are a great many things that are not that, and just because you can't think of them, or I can't think of them, does not mean they did not happen.
Unless you have direct or indirect knowledge of what happened behind those closed doors, which have not been reported in the media or elsewhere, you are not entitled to make any assumptions.
As a user, for now I am glad this is only in the EU. I am not looking forward to how this will degrade the user experience in favor of "choice" for User, when in reality its choice for the developers and Users have to follow.
I have yet to see a convincing argument that this was really necessary from a User prospective. The only argument I will buy is the limitations in what could be on the store like Adult apps, emulation, and similar. Which is valid, but not something requiring a separate store.
The day that an app requires me to install a separate App Store to use is the day my smartphone becomes less useful and I stop using that particular app. Being on the App Store has benefits to me as a User, particularly when it comes to privacy and billing. Do we really need to bring up just how much companies like Facebook pushed back on the app tracking bulletin and the scary popups many apps put up to try to convince you to allow them to track you?
Or the dark patterns that many companies continue to engage in regarding billing? Right now we are dealing with Cable companies complaining about yearly notices of renewal and being able to easily cancel, and you are going to try to tell me that companies won't find a way to abuse this?
Literally today I was trying to cancel a task management app that I mistakenly signed up on the web instead of through the app, and I have to email them to do so. But they are more than happy to let me increase the cost of my subscription with a single click.
So no this is not about choice for Users as this continues to be framed as, my choice was to go with an iOS Device in the first place for this walled garden. In the coming years the choice will be more and more made for me by developers. There is basically zero chance that Facebook, maybe Amazon, and companies big enough to try it won't jump at this chance when they have a big enough name to be able to leave the App Store and other developers can just piggy back on that.
Do you consider your PC "less useful" because there isn't a single app store for all your software, a single browser engine, a 30% surcharge for all your spending etc.?
My PC is a single purpose device, and that is for gaming. Which considering I use Steam for many of my games (not all) that 30% commission is already there.
The reality is many people use their PC's far differently than they use their phones. When my PC was my primary computing device many of the things I use and pay for on my phone either simply didn't exist, or I would never dream to pay for them.
Also you are missing the point, my phone becomes less useful because I flat out refuse to hand over access to my phone to a company which wishes to abuse that privilege of an alternative store. If they were going to act the way I want them to act, they would have no reason to use an alternative store.
The reality is most users don't have a PC, period. Even laptops are increasingly dinosaur-like, except for work-provided ones. It seems many home users are more than happy with some combination of phones, tablets, smart TVs, and consoles.
If I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't have a PC. I mean technically I would still have a Mac but much of what I use on my Mac is through the Mac App Store.
The vast majority of my general computing happens on my phone or tablet. My PC and Mac while technically general computing devices, are not in practice anymore and I would wager that is true for most people.
Not counting my Work computer for obvious reasons.
No, which in reality emphasizes the point I am trying to make. As a gamer I basically have zero choice but to install Steam, Epic Game Store, EA Store, or any other stupid launcher that a publisher decides to force on me when there is a perfectly fine game store built into Windows and Mac.
The "perfectly fine game store built into Mac" wouldn't even accept many of the games currently available on Steam. Anything with the "Adult Only" rating would just be outright rejected.
Obviously you also wouldn't be able to install the games you bought on there on any device that didn't have an Apple logo. Sharing the same game library between Windows, macOS and Linux? Nope, buy them again.
You might also have to kiss goodbye to cloud saves. The macOS App Store version of Resident Evil 4 doesn't support cloud saves between macOS and iOS devices whereas the Steam version has cloud saves.
And this is the state of Apple's game store when they are facing competition.
I am listing off those stores because I am making a point that as a gamer, I do not have a choice in using certain stores and launchers if I want to play the games I want to play.
That is the exact situation I want to avoid on my phone.
What is so hard about that to understand. This is removing a choice from a user.
You have a choice. Don't use the other store. If there was only one AppStore for games on PC you'd have no choice. That's the point. If it was only Steam, and Steam said they won't allow any games that depict war, what choice would you have?
But that's the magic of having multiple App Stores, they have to compete. They can't be the world police of software.
What's so hard to understand that having a choice means you can choose to do something, or not.
If you want to use your phone with only Apple's Appstore, continue to do so, if an app you really want is not on the app store, then DONT BUY IT, except now, someone besides you has the CHOICE to download it.
You are advocating for an indirect choice, I have no benefit to installing Epic Game store, rockstar, or any other launcher. None, it just isn't there.
Where as my direct choice is, I want to play this game. If I want to play a specific game, the choice of launcher is being made for me.
That is not competition.
I should not have to make that choice, and until this roles out I have not had to make this choice with my phone. I have been able to confidently install anything I want from a single source and it's great.
That choice will be removed from me, that DIRECT choice. Not indirect which is what the App Store change will be.
> That choice will be removed from me, that DIRECT choice. Not indirect which is what the App Store change will be.
That direct choice is an obvious illusion, though. Apps get depreciated, delisted, or plain removed by their developer all the time, your lack of control is corollary to that process. The incentive to leave the App Store has always existed, it's just viable now with alternative storefronts. As a user embedded in Apple's ecosystem, politely put, you're not owed any special treatment.
The experience may well degrade from here. I'd expect Apple to do the smart thing, and implement Android-style process isolation and additional security considerations.
>when there is a perfectly fine game store built into Windows
I am surprised to see this sentiment, given how much trouble I've had with the Windows store the few times I've been forced to use it. The way it puts files into locations I have limited rights to even while operating in admin mode... game files... made it a nightmare. Especially when it stopped working and the installer couldn't even identify those files as existing for the sake of removing them. It was to the point now I'd rather skip playing a new game than use Window's store if it was my only option, even if the game was offered for free.
There isn't user choice, only developer choice. For example, if I want to play Fortnite with my IRL friends I must download Epic Launcher. If I want to play WoW with my friends I must download BattleNet, if I want to play Counter Strike I must download Steam. I don't get much choice in what my already existing community of friends decides to play. This is likely to be mirrored in phone app stores. Need whatsapp/facebook/instagram on your phone? download the Meta Store! Don't like their T&C? Pound sand.
Don't like their T&C, don't use them. As simple as that. I do not like Trucaller's T&C, so I do not use it. If some day I don't like WhatsApp's T&C, I won't use it. My friends and family will be asked to contact me via Signal (as an example).
To your examples with games, there are lots of games that I do not install simply because I don't like those launchers. Whats wrong with that? It is _my choice_. I am not forced to use only Windows Store, for example.
The argument that "because third party app stores can be shitty, they shouldn't be possible" is strange.
Maybe "And" would have been better, but I assume you are not a gamer if you think that.
The reality is no, if I want to play Fortnite I have to install the Epic Game store. If I want to play GTA, even if I buy the game through steam I have to use the Rockstar Launcher.
There are multiple instances of this situation in gaming and it is the exact thing I don't want to happen here.
> but I assume you are not a gamer if you think that.
Why would you assume that? I play video games on my PC. I'm not forced to install any software. I can make informed decisions and understand the trade offs with what software I want to use.
Chosing to install Epic Launcher and playing Fortnite is you sending a signal into the market. Competition exists, users can express their opinion and act on it.
Then you are conceding that the choice is to ether install those stores or not play the game?
That is the exact point that I am trying to make in my post. That is not giving a user a choice that should matter to the User. That is removing the opportunity to me to play a game from where I want to play it.
The problem is, many people are just fine doing it because they want to play a large enough game. Which again is my point. In reality most users would likely download a Facebook apps store if it was required to use Facebook, same for Twitter, TikTok, and whatever other thing that people are addicted to on their phones.
That is my problem here and why comparing it to the situation with gaming is a good example. I should not loose the CHOICE to use an app from the App Store that I already use, because a developer is making their choice to push their own store.
That is the situation we are looking at here, that to use the apps I want to use I have to use those stores. Which is ridiculous, and it is naive to think it isn't going to happen when it is the state of gaming right now.
> That is the situation we are looking at here, that to use the apps I want to use I have to use those stores. Which is ridiculous, and it is naive to think it isn't going to happen when it is the state of gaming right now.
Consider the alternative where the only place to install apps (and hence games) is the Windows Store. Would that really be better? Windows Store's update process is lot worse than Steam (flaky download status, no way to make backups etc), and in many cases Steam has better integration with local payment processors.
Maybe I shouldn't have said that there was a perfectly fine store on Mac and Windows, that isn't really true. I mean they do their job but yeah.
But I can't even stay within Steam only if I wanted too. Which is well established as the standard platform, but that hasn't stopped publishers from pushing their own. Including Epic for that matter thanks to how popular Fortnite is.
Sure ok Windows Store sucks but that is changing the conversation here, I fail to see what features a general App Store on my phone would add that would truly benefit to me as a user.
But again my point here is that the choice on gaming has been removed from me if I want to play a particular game. Just saying don't play it, is not a valid argument to me.
Steam has seemed perfectly fine with basically no real competition. For the most part the consensus seems to be that users only leave Steam when they have too not because they want too.
The iOS App Store is fine with no competition (for users).
How do users loose out from payment competition on iOS? I can't think of how I loose out on anything, in reality an app trying to convince me to use their payment option instead of iOS saves me money because I don't want to fall victim to dark practices when I want to cancel.
Sure developers get a 30% cut but that seems to be the norm in the industry, that is what Steam charges. Developers can't just not tell me a yearly subscription is about to charge, make me call to cancel, but as a USER that is a good thing.
If a developer tries to push me outside of the App Store to pay them, once again that is the Developer making the choice for me.
Why do we keep pretending PCs are comparable with phones? They compute, that's the end of their similarities. They have completely different use cases and are needed for different reasons. Things that are good on a PC might not be good on a phone.
For sure. I agree with their whole post. There isn't any advantage whatsoever as a user to have Steam, Microsoft App Store, Epic Store, etc. All those stores take their pound of flesh and it is up to me to manage them all. It sucks.
This attitude is completely baffling to me. I certainly understand if you don't want to use those other stores and loading options, but I feel like everyone has Stockholm Syndrome thinking it's a good thing that alternative ways to run software on a device you own should be forbidden by our tech overloads. On a site called Hacker News no less!
As a user of said stores, I understand the frustration : because of exclusivity deals, some games are available on shop x but not shop y, and you end up with a fragmented view of your games, different rules etc.
Now as you pointed out forbidding alternative ways is not necessarily the one true solution !
F-Droid gets this right out of the box. A one-stop-shop for Free, Open Source applications has annihilated my desire to purchase apps at all. I don't buy PDF readers or file browsers or launchers or basic system utilities any other user would expect for free. I install it, because I have that choice.
Without F-Droid or the ability to install Open Source software, I wouldn't use Android. It's that much of a game-changer, and I suspect Apple wants to avoid a similar disruption at all costs.
Wasn't the Epic Game store also found to be a privacy nightmare? I could be wrong but I felt like that was a major reason the Heroic Game Launcher got so much traction (which is fantastic btw)
> I am not looking forward to how this will degrade the user experience in favor of "choice" for User, when in reality its choice for the developers and Users have to follow.
That's an interesting point. I can see Apple figuring this out as well and choosing this model, precisely to annoy users and degrade the user experience. If users complain they can shrug and say "Well EU asked for it and we complied. Talk to your representatives, I guess..."
I've seen this strategy in politics, when a party goes through some effort to subtly sabotage initiatives and projects promoted by their opponents only to later say "look, how badly they failed".
The only entity you should be blaming is Apple themselves. They could have eased up their grip just a little bit to prevent this from happening, but instead they chose to be dragged kicking and screaming.
Yeah, agreed. I am especially upset at the custom browser rendering engines, as I really do like Safari and I'm not at all excited about my favorite apps stuffing a Chrome instance inside of them (electron for iOS now??)
I hope user choice is prioritized, and it seems like the way Apple has it set up, apps won't be able to get a significant following by distributing outside the App store.
1) As a "technical" user who started using Firefox when it was called Phoenix (then Firebird, then Firefox)—this is of zero value to me. Might be to (frankly, a very few) others, but I will see no personal benefit from this. I have zero need for more browser engines on my phone & tablet.
2) The main market effect is probably gonna be that Google is able to cross-promote and "whoopsie" bugs its way into having even more market share for its engine. Don't love that, but it won't personally harm me unless Safari market share gets low enough that dev shops drop from "test on Chrome and Safari" to "test on Chrome... and that's it".
3) Where this might really, really suck is if they have to permit non-browsers to bundle Web and/or JS engines. I very much do not want that and it's likely to make my experience noticeably worse, if that happens. Dunno if that's required by the changes, though.
I don't know.. what if every app suddenly becomes 200MB bigger and devs throw Chrome instances in just about everything? They could bring electron to iOS and make an app that's not even native. Not to mention it would be objectively worse from a tracking/privacy point of view. Chrome has never been on the side of user privacy and I'm scared that continues with its introduction to iOS.
I think providing more choice will help Apple stay competitive though. If that happens, then users will find Apple's native browser/apps to be faster. A win for customers overall and insurance for Apple to not drop the ball!
As far as tracking/privacy, I suspect Apple's next move would be to provide greater restriction of your device information and browsing information secure (another win for customers that isn't really granularly provided today).
That one on paper I don't mind, I mean I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS.
But yes, that is a good change that should have happened a long time ago. Same with the game streaming one.
> I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS.
Aren't you just describing... competition?
If Apple's browser product is superior, users will use it. If those users want a feature Chrome has, Apple can either implement the feature or ignore it. That's no different than things are today, if you wanted to avoid a Chrome hegemony then we should have invested in a better cross-platform delivery mechanism than Electron. We didn't get one.
Apple's support to WebKit and Safari is entirely compulsory. I agree that it's a positive impact on the web as a Firefox user, but I'd also argue Apple's ends did not justify their means. The development of Safari is very distinctly neglected to increase demand for native (read: taxable) APIs.
My problem here is Google, we can't deny they have used their position in Search, Gmail, Maps and others to push users towards Chrome with constant reminders to use their tools. I mean if I sign into Google on my iPhone I basically instantly get an email about setting up my iPhone with google or something, which is ridiculous.
Competition in this space is great but Google has far too much control of the browser market for my comfort and we are seeing the harm of that with third party cookies, tracking, AMP, and other things.
And again I welcome this particular change, I am just worried about what it will mean as Google pushes harder.
You're not wrong, but unfortunately I'm hard pressed to treat Apple any differently now. Apple also uses their position on the web, desktop and mobile to set unfathomably destructive standards for modern computing. AdSense and the App Store are two sides of the same con; circular marketplaces where the players scramble and the house always wins. They both feed back into terrible UX decisions and encourage the darkest, most manipulative side of either company.
It'll be different regulation that comes for Google, but you can take solemn certainty in knowing they're up next. My biggest concern is that Microsoft won't receive enough scrutiny, but on the other hand I can barely trust them not to capsize Windows over the next decade.
Regardless, 10 years from now I hope we'll have a more competitive and vibrant future for local compute and the web. It's a shame (but not unexpected) that regulation has to draw the line.
Apple is just as guilty of this. They regularly push users into Apple Maps for any address or location bit, can't even change the default app to which it would open. In fact, if I highlight and copy the address and then go into Google Maps, I get asked to grant permission to copy and paste every time...
My only hope is that some of the Apple fans start to see through the thick veil of PR bs and realize Apple is just as bad (if not worse) than the other tech assholes / technofeudal lordship wannabes of Microsoft, Google et al.
Is there any record of another browser engine being summited to the app store and the outcome? AFAIK when I worked at Mozilla I'm not aware that Gecko was ever submitted even though I saw a working local build.
Even the WebKit wrapper browsers (including Chrome and Firefox) didn’t have access to JIT until iOS 8 when WKWebView was introduced. UIWebView is in-process and not allowed to use JIT.
Marketplace developers will need to pay €0.50 for each first annual install of their marketplace app. First annual installs included in your Apple Developer Program membership can’t be used for marketplace apps.
This won't make a major difference for consumers, especially in the app stores. Even if Apple opened the flood gates with no restrictions for alternative stores on their platform, little if anyone is going to migrate away from the App Store.
Look at Android, where alternative app stores have existed for years with little adoption. You have three kinds:
1. Open Source Markets (F-Droid), These are great for free apps but if you sideload this on your dads phone all you'll get are texts like "Where do I get YouTube"
2. Megacorporation Bazaars (Amazon App Store), this means nothing to developers except who you pay your exorbitant fee to, with the added problem of less eyes on your actual product (which users will go out of their way to install an alternative app store?)
3. Sketchy Side Markets / Piracy Stores (APKPure): These will be the main ones people choose to download under the promise of "free apps", and Apple is right to be nervous of the security of these. People will brick their phones trying to get free Robux.
If you don't understand how bad these get I recommend downloading APKPure and using it as your primary app source for a month.
Aurora store does not count, since it is simply an alternative UI for apps hosted on Google Play.
Maybe, maybe, if people can buy apps directly in browser on a developers site, people will do that. But not many.
I appreciate the EU moving towards more open market legislation but this in particular is just window dressing. It'll be just like Cookie Notices - ignored, and everyone moves on.
I think that providing hardware as well as gatekeeping installs with fees is double dipping. Users want to use your hardware because of the great software that runs on it. Don't bleed your developers.
There is nothing "secure" or "private" about a "smartphone". This is the company that has pushed the hardest for "smartphones". And it continues to do so, making computers people buy from Apple connect Apple's own own computers, the mothership, 24/7, from the moment a buyer turns on the computer for the first time. By default.
There is no "security" or "privacy" for the _owner_ of a computer that is locked down so that the _owner_ of that computer cannot control it. There could be "security" and "privacy" for whomever is controlling the computer. That would be Apple. This could even be "security" and "privacy" as against the computer's owner.
Apple needs to have two versions of iOS, & sell their phones with a choice for users. One phone is iOS as is, with perhaps even more security baked-in. The other is open, Wild West like so many here are demanding. The kicker is that the version on the phone cannot be changed to the other: the Wild West phone has to be regarded as compromised from the start, & Apple can easily market it that way. "They're both the same great phone. But you can only trust one of them." Let the market decide. I'm pretty sure which way consumers would decide, a direction which would in no way please the state actors looking to get a toehold on the data in every iPhone. [Edited typo]
Who's the "you" in "you can trust"? If it's the DRM assholes looking for remote attestation and other ways to take ownership away from device owners, then that's an amazing outcome in my mind.
If you're implying that device owners can no longer trust their own devices, that's a weak argument that 50+ years of PC (emphasis on the "personal") industry can help invalidate.
A simple non-subscription paid app (say €2.99) makes way more sense, and you almost certainly won't have to worry about ever reaching a million installs.
I'm wondering why internet providers don't charge a 'Core Technology Fee' for every link we open on the internet. First 100,000 links free, then just €0.10.
Apply generally the same rules for computer manufacturers. Pre-Installing Windows and forcing them to use it? No.
Lenovo allows me to order a system without any operating-system or Linux. And I can spend the saved money to GNOME or other people in need. That should be standard, default shall be operating-system.
And for Google. Visiting Google or YouTube and they try lure me to install Chrome. Android must ask if I want a better browser. Like Safari or Firefox. I appreciate a port of WebKitGtk (needs more developers).
Actually I would appreciate if the EU generally stops thinking in “free markets” and thinks instead of “free citizens”. If I own something it is mine.
But you bought it and knew what you would get upfront? You're free to not buy it. I never understood this entitlement. "I want device XYZ to behave like I want." Why buy apple in the first place? There are enough devices that cater to this very preference.
The only argument the EU can make is monopolies. And mac is not even near being a monopoly. Not even the i devices are.
Your argument is that the people know that they are only two harmful smartphone systems from Google and Apple. And therefore it is the people’s fault to choose one?
> Choose between death or ban!
< Ban?
> Okay. Death through ban.
People have the right to modify, repair or maintain their property - within boundaries of law (e.g. you can use tires of your choice on your bicycle - but you cannot remove the belts in a car and drive on public roads).
In the past we enforced regularly features for devices. Interoperability should be a general requirement! Exceptions apply only if the manufacturer is able to explain why it isn’t possible or a new standard is required.
Back to normal.
PS: Your argument is neglecting lacking knowledge by 90% of customers and the mass-effect by this group. People do not understand software.
> People have the right to modify, repair or maintain their property
In all honesty, I think this just isn't true with networked software anymore and I don't think we can solve this properly. It's not a simple lawnmower but exists in a bigger context. As Apple/Google etc. need to spend more work and money afterwards, it's not as simple as "it's muh property" but get's a lot more complex.
> Your argument is neglecting lacking knowledge by 90% of customers and the mass-effect by this group.
That was an argument in 2006, I don't think it is 18 years later. And in all honesty, I don't believe people care. Otherwise they wouldn't buy Alexa or stupid adware in the form of TVs. They know, they just don't care.
As a Thinkpad fan (from Germany, maybe this makes a difference) I have to say that Lenovo usually only let's you buy Laptops without Windows for very crappy machines or if you're a student via Lenovo campus program.
The X13 Gen3 or Gen 4 (both AMD or Intel) are high-end devices. Both allow to ship without operating-system.
// edit
Double checked that. You can also select the OS for the T14s or T14-Intel. The decision of Lenovo for options are sometimes weird. It looks like that ThinkPads preferred for professional usage likely ship without operating-system. Maybe you look for already built-devices only?
Look for the options upon CTOs devices - which makes sense - their built upon request.
Sometimes you can also select Fedora or Ubuntu but I think the majority of Linux user prefer to setup the system itself.
Apple must be crazy with their per install charge fee. I am impressed at how obtuse Apple is, and the level they are going to be petty. The hammer will only fall harder.
I wish I was European, or I could move there, but the most likely route would probably be committing some crime in the states and then seeking asylum unfortunately
People who disagree won't like your comment, but it is a legitimate view.
I'm all for side loading, but at the same time I would like Apple to have enough drag to force the big players (e.g. Meta) to continue to publish on the App Store and follow the rules.
hopefully this has the opposite effect of what Apple intends and ruins their app ecosystem. Non-EU developers hopefully also stop developing apps for Apple.
These forced changes feel like adding a “disable ABS and traction control” button to a car. Great from the perspective of race car drivers. But my 70 years old parents ARE going to press that button and they ARE going to have a digital car crash because of this.
I’m already looking forward to the “I lost my bookmarks!” call because they chose a different browser and the “my battery is dying so fast!” call because they sideloaded the new Facebook app with unprecedented crap in it from Facebook’s marketplace.
> 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.
> Authorization for marketplace developers...
> 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.
Amazing. All this regulation and hand-wringing to just to make it exactly the same developer experience as before but now you can click the download button in another app. Plus now every app not just ones that use IAP for digital goods is gonna get a $500k annual fee once they hit 2M users. The EU really showed em who's boss.
I've got to say, this whole thing is... clever. I'm not defending Apple here, but I am saying that the way they seemed to figure out policies to comply with the letter of the law while making it seem pointless for a developer to switch to a third-party app store... well, it definitely does make Apple look smarter than the EU, that's for sure.
If it really is as it sounds, I give the EU one month max before they "fix" this. The EU doesn't like it when large corpos purposely use loopholes to go against the spirit of the law.
Not even close. These things take at least a year or two to analyze and draft and debate and redraft and so forth. Then even when they're passed, there's a year or more to give companies time to enter compliance. Not to mention that there isn't necessarily the political impetus or appetite to revisit it right now -- they passed the DMA, now other things have higher priority.
The idea of "fixing" this in just one month isn't how anything happens -- it would take multiple years if it happened at all. The EU simply does not move anywhere near that fast -- not legislatively and not in the courts either.
Am I the only one that thinks the EU is gonna take one look at this, determine that it's anticompetitive and completely at odds with the spirit of the law, and take a giant shit on Apple's head? I don't think governments like when anybody but them internalises externalities-- particularly not crawling bureaucratic horrors of over-regulation like the EU. (I'm an EU subject, incidentally.)
Okay, so Apple's doing a bit of the ol' switcheroo with the rules, and the EU is like that strict teacher who sees everything. It's like when you were in school and thought you could sneak a text under the desk, but the teacher had eyes like a hawk. Now, Apple's trying to be sneaky and the EU's like, 'I don't think so, buddy.' It's all legal jargon and big words, but basically, it's a game of cat and mouse, except the mouse is a tech giant and the cat's got a whole continent backing it up. Gonna need more than cheese to get out of this one, Apple.
It seems Apple has misunderstood their role here. They are to not be involved at all in transactions between other businesses delivering software to people's phones, just like we have done for every other general purpose computer.
They will need a second, even stronger slap to finally understand it. Actually insane that they believe they will get away with this garbage.
Some people (me included) would actually like to have a secure, vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on my phone (and even my computer). I realize that other people want something different. And think it is reasonable for people to want different approaches for different devices.
Any regulations designed to ensure the "open" model shouldn't prevent the "closed" model from existing. Your comment just seems a bit to heavy handed to my ear.
That being said, it seems to me that Apple's attempt is guaranteed to satisfy no one.
You can have this! Simply only download apps from Apple's store. Apple still has no right to interfere in any way at all, or collect a tax, if I want to sell an app to someone else outside of it.
What about the people like you saying Apple has no place in between 3rd party devs and the end user? You literally said he couldn't have it? From your first post if you had your druthers Apple would be slapped harder and harder until they disband the App Store.
If the seller is voluntarily working together with Apple (i.e. purposefully selling the software through their store) that is obviously fine. The whole point of the DMA is we should not be forced to.
> Apple still has no right to interfere in any way at all, or collect a tax, if I want to sell an app to someone else outside of it.
You seem to be demanding that everyone bend to your view of how the world should work.
But the fact is that Apple has a right to determine what apps are on their platform. No different to how supermarkets choose what items to stock or social networks moderate what content to show.
Apple does not have a right to determine what software people run on their general purpose computers. That is the whole point of the DMA. I apologize if you couldn't understand this.
> No different to how supermarkets choose what items to stock
And yet, you can drive to Ikea and buy a couch without having to pay a fee to Walmart. Very curious. Want to think of a better analogy?
The whole point of all of these millions in legal fees is to even have the OPTION of an open model. Of course you'll always have walled garden option, that's apple's golden goose.
There is a disagreement, the first poster clearly believes Apple even having a closed App Store is an infringement, even if he can not use it. And it's honestly almost gaslighting to pretend that the first poster isn't making that argument
No, this is not true. I do not care about what Apple does with their App Store. The point is they should not be allowed to insert themselves into a relationship between me trying to sell something and someone else trying to buy it from me directly. No cost to Apple exists, thus they should not be paid. It's really simple actually.
> Some people (me included) would actually like to have a secure, vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on my phone (and even my computer).
I don't think the problem is the idea of an app store offering only secure and vetted software. Apple absolutely doesn't offer that right now, but even if they ever do offer something like that would you really want that to be the only way to get software on your device?
Letting someone, no matter how trustworthy they are, decide for you what you can and cannot run on your own computer is a giving up a lot of freedom. I'd even say that was dangerous when it comes to our cell phones since we're basically stuck with just Apple or Google controlling our devices and for most people a cell phone is the only computer they own.
> Apple absolutely doesn't offer that right now, but even if they ever do offer something like that would you really want that to be the only way to get software on your device?
Did you read my entire comment? Both models should be available.
> Some people (me included) would actually like to have a secure, vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on my phone (and even my computer).
And that thing already exists - it's the app store. No one would be stopping you from choosing to only download apps from the official app store, and I assume that many people would be similar to you. They will only use the official app store because that is the vetted-by-apple place to find software.
But just because the closed and vetted ecosystem exists for users like you, doesn't mean that Apple should be able to prevent other people that don't care about that from doing what they want to with the devices they literally own.
I really don't understand this mentality of people who are happy to live in a free society but want North Korea on their phones. I wouldn't mind it if it was a fringe OS, but it's half the phone market.
Who are you talking about? I explicitly said that I can understand the interest in both types of ecosystems and even that one person may like different scenarios for different devices.
They probably have Apple shares. It's the only explanation I can think of for some of the people here actually arguing in favor of Apple stealing money from society with junk fees.
Yes, iOS is the only solution available if I want to use iPhone hardware. Selling software to people that have phones has been recognized as a market under the DMA, which relieves Apple of any and all control over it.
Absolutely spot on, and it really does seem like it’s always Android users moaning about Apple’s business model.
Why can’t you and I just live happily in our walled garden without zealots of open access ruining it for us? It truly boggles me. Is it jealousy? That’s all I can come up with.
Indeed, so why do they care what I can/can’t install on /my/ phone? I don’t need someone to fight my battles for me, and I certainly don’t need someone to fight their battles for me!
So you want to utilize the power of the state to force a private entity to sell its products under terms that are "reasonable" to you?
Where is the limit on that sort of approach? Do you want the state to force everyone to set prices so that you can purchase everything at terms "reasonable" to you? How do we decide what is "reasonable"?
Given the existence of the Android alternative it is hard for me to support the argument that the government should mandate how Apple conducts its business. Even when I agree that Apple's policies have problems, I still don't think heavy-handed regulation by government is necessarily better.
Apple is using its market power to prevent third parties from doing business with you by selling you software to install on hardware you bought. At first it was explicit, now that they can't due to EU regulation, they're attempting to circumvent it by charging a fee to third party distribution that doesn't apply to distribution through their own app store.
That is what's unreasonable; I would be glad consumer rights are being protected by the power of the state in this case. It is hard to believe that there are so many people who prioritize the rights of the corporation to prevent competition over the rights of individual to do business with whoever they want, regardless of what hardware they own or operating system they use.
IDK. Android exists and is closer to the open model people here seem to want, yet the same people appear to knowingly still buy iPhones and complain it's not like Android.
Mainly because Apple hardware is amazing. I used to run Windows on Bootcamp on my MacBook and loved it and now Windows is worse, Apple Silicon is just way better. If Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"
That doesn’t seem like something to legislate over to me though. “Your hardware is too good, you’re going to have to change the associated business model”? Madness, shouldn’t the onus just be on Android phone manufacturers to up their game? It’s not like Apple got where they are with iPhones for free, they heavily invested and are now enjoying the fruits.
> If Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"
If Apple suddenly changed Macs, sure. But, iOS has always been this way. Anyone who bought an iOS device over the last decade+ knows exactly the limitations and how it works. Android exists for those who want more open, yet the market has shown ~50% don't care about Android level openness.
I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work, especially when an alternative does exist and consumers have spoken with their money.
Of course, this would be different if Android and iOS operated the same, or one had an overwhelming majority of the market. Because then consumers wouldn't have a choice.
> I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work
What absolute nonsense is this? That is literally the entire point of legislation, to change things that aren't working how we want them to, for example to be more beneficial to society. Apple stealing money from a huge market isn't helping anyone so we fix it. Simple as.
> That is literally the entire point of legislation, to change things that aren't working how we want them to, for example to be more beneficial to society.
Where do you get this idea? What is the limit on this principle? The DMA that you keep referring to is an European legal framework. Is it your opinion that everyone must bow down to what European legislators and regulators deem "beneficial"?
An argument that derives entirely from the idea that "the government has decided it is beneficial" is unpersuasive, IMHO.
I said how I want them to work, not what is beneficial to society. Societal benefit is hard to balance and define. Don't assume what you want is automatically better for society as a whole.
I assume our politicians already spent significant time thinking about this before coming up with the DMA. But okay, I'll bite. How does it benefit society for Apple to steal 30% of everyone's transactions?
I didn’t mean “they can’t afford it” jealousy, but from my experience the quality of apps on iOS is significantly higher than Android, that’s what I was going for; jealous of the “polish”, if you will.
Then again that could be because I’m used to iOS and find the Android UX patterns poor at best.
Is it not my choice though? When I buy an iPhone knowing how the App Store and their walled garden work? If anything, I could argue Android users pushing for more openness are invaliding my choice!
I am not a lawyer and not interested in reading hundreds of pages to figure out whether this is already non-compliant with the DMA, but it is clearly non-compliant with its intention, so I trust it will be fixed.
Courts in EU and US have all agreed that Apple is well within its rights to charge a license fee for use of their technologies. No different to companies like Epic or OpenAI.
And I would have doubts that any regulator would want to get into the business of deciding what is a fair percentage to charge for an SDk or API.
The fee is paid by the user when they buy the phone. No additional cost to Apple exists because the user downloaded an app that I wrote from my website/store. Thus, Apple should not be paid for it. That's really simple - we've been doing this model for general purpose computers for decades already.
Just as Unity has a legal ability to charge a fee for a game engine, Apple has a legal ability to charge for the Swift programming language along with the rest of the SDK.
It sucks because Apple is hiding behind intellectual property rights to protect its ability to tax the app economy.
Disney could allows 3rd party cafes in Disneyland, mandate the use of Disney logos on all products, and charge a $2 royalty of every product sold with a Disney logo.
It's a dick move but shifts the legal argument from one of monopoly / gatekeeper status to one of intellectual property rights, the latter being much more business friendly and entrenched in international agreements.
a) Nobody knows other than Apple about whether the cost of building the SDKs etc are included in the price of the iPhone. So making definitive statements about their being no additional cost makes no sense.
b) Microsoft and Apple both charge for developer programs and in the past it used to be significantly higher than today. So there is a precedent for this.
Apple financial statements are public. We know the income from hardware sales exceeds all costs and R&D by far. The app store fees are basically stealing from society on top of that to enrich themselves.
Replace "technologies" with "services and infrastructure" and you're close.
The DMA says that users should be able to choose other service- and infrastructure providers than Apple. Nobody's giving Dell or Microsoft a cut for every software install on a Dell PC, though I'm sure they'd love that.
Agreed. This is a licensing issue that has far reaching impact if addressed. As long as licensing software is a thing, Apple is well within its right to charge.
And to your point, a judge in one of the recent cases even said they were not inclined to tell Apple how much to charge in their business.
I see the Netherlands case on third party PSPs for dating apps, and it was in the scope of apps downloaded and managed within the AppStore. Do you see any other case ruled in the EU on this subject ?
Apple made a decision early on to "give away" the ability to write and distribute (the $100 fee is nothing) apps for their store, and only take payment from payment received. So you have tons of free apps that just exist on Apple's code and infrastructure, with no cost to the companies.
Yes, if the developers want to use Apple's App Store, they should pay for it, that is not the problem. The problem is that developers are forced to use Apple's App Store instead of another distribution platform. But now Apple is saying "Its okay if you want to use another distribution platform, but you still need to pay us". Why is that okay? (And no, an iPhone itself is not Apple's platform, once the user buys the phone, its their platform).
Once the user buys the phone, they own the physical device, but that’s not all they are receiving. They also receive software and services. They don’t own those - they have a license for them.
I think what many people are missing and you're pointing out is that this is a licensing issue. It's no different from Unreal Engine taking a 5% cut of every game sold or Sony taking a cut of all PS games. Developing using iOS libraries and tools requires developers to accept the licensing terms put forward by Apple. There is a lot of precedence for Apple's terms and they are better than most others.
If this is an issue we want to address, then we need software/ip licensing in general to be changed.
You are right, and I don't think the DMA applies only to Apple. If PS does not allow anything from other sources, then Sony will have to change too.
The Unreal example is wrong though, there are other engines to choose from.
> The Unreal example is wrong though, there are other engines to choose from.
There are other phones to chose from also. This is where the rub is. Apple has already successfully argued in the US that the phone and the software and app store are a single entity. Breaking them apart does not make sense.
Instead of paying 5% for the Unreal engine, I only want to pay 2% when I use someone Unity's networking stack. And, if Unreal isn't happy about that, I will petition the government to force them. It may sound odd or absurd, but it's still just a ip/software licensing agreement.
BTW, any PS game sold digital or physical owes Sony a licensing fee (~15% last I saw). So even if Sony is forced to allow other digital stores on the PS, they will likely still demand a licensing fee for each game sold. Where the game comes from is irrelevant, except with physical sales falling under right of first sale doctrine.
> There are other phones to chose from also. This is where the rub is.
Why do certain people always always fall back on this lame response that's not even applicable.
> It may sound odd or absurd
It's indeed absurd. Unity and Unreal Engine are not gatekeepers in any sense of the word. They do not control any market, they simply sell software and services to developers. Game engines are dime a dozen and games switch between different engines surprisingly often.
This regulation addresses business dealings between Apple and developers working with their platform. Developers have a completely free choice of using Unity or Unreal Engine, it doesn't make a lick of difference to anyone except developers and artists working on the game.
Developers do not have a choice of which platform their customers are using, the developer can't "choose Android" because they need to reach users on iOS which makes up half of their customer base.
Not just in the app market, but in any market - hardware products, physical businesses, government services. All of those need to play by Apple's rules if they want to survive. This is what makes Apple the gatekeeper, they have the power to affect technological development of the entire world.
If Apple decided that apps couldn't use NFC, this could potentially hold back modernization of the entire European public transit system. If Apple blocked apps from using certain bluetooth features, this would sink their competitors in the accessories & IoT market.
It's not acceptable for one corporation to essentially hold the world hostage, hence this regulation.
Holding the world hostage is exactly what this is and it already happens, most notably with browsers and how Apple drags their feet on PWAs, making them an non-viable alternative to apps. Consumers don't even notice, because progress which can't happen... doesn't happen, and there's nothing to see. Even if they knew, the app simply doesn't exist and there's nothing they can do about it.
The DMA calls this out, explicitly:
> Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users to reach end users everywhere in the Union and on different markets. The adverse impact of unfair practices on the internal market and the particularly weak contestability of core platform services, including the negative societal and economic implications of such unfair practices, have led national legislators and sectoral regulators to act.
As for:
> Developers can certainly choose Android to develop features that Apple prevents them from doing.
You can't release something like a public transit app only on Android and you know it.
Mass market adoption for general purposes, relevance in people's lives. Many EU citizens manage their entirely digital life from their phone, I do not know of anyone who uses an XBox 360 to do that.
Not that I would be opposed to game consoles also falling under this legislation.
> But some computers ship with software/firmware that restricts the purposes accessible by the end user.
Which is a necessary evil if you're shipping the hardware of that "computer" at ultra low or negative margins in order to make back the investment on SW sales.
Otherwise, the air force will buy boatloads of PS3s for a computer farm and scalpers will use PS5 for crypto mining and Sony would go bust from these hardware sales.
Apple is in a different position as it makes crazy margins even on hardware which is arare for hardware manufacturers.
Selling hardware at negative margins is not a "necessary" evil; it's just a business model that some manufacturers choose to impose on consumers, and then we end up with things like DRM-encumbered printer ink cartridges.
Personal computing/general tasks being done on the device vs one purpose. Like there's not just the ability to talk on the phone and message. People use it as their sole computer, apply for jobs, pay for things, research things, etc.
An iPhone is just a tiny pocket computer. There is no technical reason preventing an iPhone from running shell scripts and emulators. The only reason why it can't do is because Apple controls what apps you are allowed to run on your phone.
Actually, yes. If the iPhone was an open platform that could open it up for many use cases involving shell scripting and such. As for game emulators I already run several on my Android phone with great luck, so that is indeed a valid use case.
The real worry is not the commercial angle, but the fact that centralized censorship of apps will remain.
Apple will retain the ability to shut off protest or encrypted communications/news/social apps, even when distributed outside of their store, by revoking the signatures.
This is a threat to a free society, not just a threat to Apple’s price-gouging revenue.
I'd actually would prefer I'm not forced to use some BS third party app store, or more, just because some big player whose apps I need (say Facebook or Google) only makes them available through their own shitty app store, and not through the iOS app store anymore.
it's just the distribution. why does that make such a difference to your experience?
to me, i see the app store for 5 seconds between clicking a "download" link, pressing "install", and closing it.
on my computer i don't care if spotify publishes their desktop app through the apple store, their own website, command line, or some other thing. i trust it because the download link comes from spotify's website, that's the source of authority. i don't care about the thing in between clicking download and having it on my device.
>it's just the distribution. why does that make such a difference to your experience?
Installing an extra BS "app store" app per vendor to do the distribution, dealing with another payment processor and its intricasies (for apps you pay/subscribe for, e.g. Adobe's), multiple places to manage apps and subscriptions, and so on.
>on my computer i don't care if spotify publishes their desktop app through the apple store, their own website, command line, or some other thing.
I do, and try to get as most of the stuff from the same source as possible, preferably the Mac App Store and brew.
I also hate the "update/licensing apps" running in the background for apps I use (Chrome updater is one most would be familiar with, but there are tons, especially for pro apps), and the extra multi-app download managers/stores I'm forced to use.
There's no reason why a different app store couldn't offer the exact same feature; centralized payments for all apps in their store. They could just charge a competitive fee, forcing Apple to compete fairly, lowering prices for all without impacting quality of experience.
Weak. What happened to Schrems 2 de facto banning GAFAMs (and other companies from rogue states like the USA) in the EU ?
Instead they are legitimizing these companies ?!?
(Also, we'll never see serious competition from EU companies as long as these giants are allowed to operate here... and also just buy any potential competition.)
Providing hardware and gatekeeping installs with fees is double dipping. Users want your hardware because of the cool software that runs on it. If you depend on 3rd parties to make attractive software don't harm the developers!
> For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates
Wait a minute, did the EU tried enforcing key escrow or something?
> The new options for processing payments and downloading apps on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats.
Ah, I see. Apple gate keeps everything for our own good. Nothing to do with money. Nothing at all…
Now I have a relative that for some reason always gets their computer full of malware. Had to reset their Android phone last week, presumably for this very reason. Nobody has any idea how that stuff gets in, but with him, it always does. We started to jokingly accuse him of getting to shady web sites, but he won’t admit to anything. Anyone knows someone like him, and how they might be helped?
Besides locking his computer like we would a child, that is.
My take? This whole situation is like a game of 4D chess where everyone's trying to be the smartest in the room. Apple's playing the long game, the EU's laying down the law, and the rest of us are just here munching popcorn, watching the drama unfold. It's like, "Oh, you're gonna charge for that? Cool, cool, cool, but remember, there's always a bigger fish." And let's not forget, in the end, it's usually us, the consumers, who end up footing the bill, one way or another. So grab your popcorn, folks, and let's see how this corporate soap opera plays out!
Alright, let's break it down. Apple's new rules are like when you finally get the freedom to eat ice cream for breakfast, but then realize you have to buy the ice cream yourself. Everyone was excited about alternative marketplaces, but now it's like, 'Surprise! There's a cost attached.' It's a classic 'be careful what you wish for' scenario. You wanted more options? Great, but now you've got to deal with the real world where things aren't always as free and easy as they seem. It's like discovering Santa isn't real all over again. Welcome to the grown-up table, alternative marketplaces.
It's more like you get to eat ice cream for breakfast, but in addition to having to buy the ice cream yourself, you still have to pay the waffle house down the street a fee whenever you get a new flavor of ice cream.
The EU has a haphazard record on technical regulation, but their requirement for alternative app stores is decent IMO.
Apple and Google have a chequered history of cherry-picking which social networking apps are allowed on their platform, based on content in those apps.
Some apps may, for cultural reasons, have the lion's share of toxic content, such is the nature of a free society where cultures are allowed to differ. But users should be free to decide what apps they consider "toxic," because peoples' definitions of "toxic" differ.
Free speech is a first amendment right because it's a fundamental pre-requisite of a free society.
Why should two corporates in California (subject to all the political biases that exist in that state) be gatekeepers of freedom of expression and association for the rest of the world?
If a corporate chooses what opinions and discussions are "appropriate" for us, then our thoughts and worldviews are subtly shaped by the whims of that corporate.
It wouldn't be so bad if there were multiple corporates who differentiated their approach, but unfortunately we've seen Big Tech acting in concert on certain issues (certain apps that were banned), and that should concern us all.
They may suppress rightwing views today, but we can't predict what Big Tech will deny us access to tomorrow. Tomorrow's target might be something we value (but is inconvenient for the Big Tech establishment)
If you're on the left-hand side of politics, try to imagine a world where two companies in Wyoming controlled your access to information and discussion. And an app was banned if it was seen to be too leftwing... too "risky" and "disruptive" to "public order?"
I understand Apple's arguments about the integrity of its ecosystem, and for what it's worth, I value Apple's vertically-integrated and curated approach. But I lost a lot of faith in Apple when they started cherry-picking social networks. Now I recognise that users need a side-channel so they can choose to sacrifice a degree of safety in order to retain access to free speech.
Reading Apple's announcement doesn't fill me with confidence though. "Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers."
Inevitably, this means that if a developer dares to build a marketplace that hosts a free speech app, Apple can simply refuse to allow the marketplace to run on their phones.
Big Tech will not relinquish control without a fight.
I have not seen this important aspect mentioned yet. Once you have opted in to Apple's new business terms, you will be locked in to those terms forever.
Because of this restriction, given the ridiculous €0.50 per year per install fees, no developer who hopes their new app will one day have more than 1M installs will choose these new terms, and I have no doubt that is exactly Apple's intention here.
You're right - this clause needs more scrutiny. This is a poison pill (and a smoking gun in terms of malicious non-compliance). There is no good reason for this rule except greed and spite.
Notice that this draconian rule is per developer not per app like one might expect. What utter nonsense.
Great point, I will revise my statement to "no developer who hopes any app they ever create will one day have more than 1M installs will choose these new terms, and I have no doubt that is exactly Apple's intention here.".
It seems there's some contradicting information. The main page linked by this very thread says "and/or":
"Developers operating under the new business terms will have the option to distribute their iOS apps from the App Store and/or alternative app marketplaces."
I believe this is relevant section of the agreement addendum:
>5.5. Application Transfers - Once You agree to this Addendum, Your Applications cannot be transferred to an Apple Developer Program membership that has not signed this Addendum.
Yes, if you stay with the old business terms, you can only distribute your iOS apps on the App Store.
If you agree to the new business terms, you can distribute them on the App Store, on alternative app marketplaces, or both. I think that's what "and/or" means here. You are not obliged to distribute your app through alternate app marketplaces, or through the App Store. Some developers whose apps are already on the App Store won't get around to distributing their apps on the alternative marketplaces. Other developers releasing new apps will forego the App Store entirely. Once they've accepted the new terms, the new fee structures will apply to those developers regardless of which marketplace(s) they choose.
And once you've agree to the new terms, you can't switch back.
The fact that they don't allow you to transfer your apps to another developer account unless that account has also opted in to the new business terms, is new information and interesting, but not surprising. Otherwise, it would be possible to circumvent the lock-in provisions merely by creating a new developer account and transferring your apps to it.
It feels like there is an almost unprofessional level of snark in the way this is written. I assume Apple is banking on consumers siding with them on it but I have to wonder about the wisdom of doing that. The EU seems to be very unafraid to take on big tech, and i wouldn't want to be the company that triggers them to decide to make example to deter future malicious compliance.
I'm jealous as hell of the EU citizens that get such good protections. I'm sure it's a mixed bag like everywhere but my experience with activity tracking is that a lot of people do aggressively refuse tracking when given the choice... so I'd imagine other tech regulations have similar participation.
Even non-technical people understand that Big Tech is mostly foreign and under the laws of a country where at least one of the presidential candidates is promising a worse relationship with Europe.
The EU currently experiences a shift towards nationalistic and populist parties and that doesn't help big tech either. Apple and Google are known as tax dodgers.
In addition there are also people who understand the technical and economical details.
speaking as only one EU citizen but echoing what I'm pretty confident is a widely held sentiment, yes we're tired of having the rules of our digital spaces dictated to us by big tech and the times where companies can act like feudal fiefdoms is coming to an end, hopefully quickly.
Apart from getting things cheaper, there are multiple reasons from country to country (people prefer to not share private data, generic dislike for big tech, pirate party)
Microsoft's: "We look forward to continuing to work with the European Commission to finalize our compliance obligations."
Google: "While we support many of the DMA's ambitions around consumer choice and interoperability, the new rules involve difficult trade-offs, and we're concerned that some of these rules will reduce the choices available to people and businesses in Europe."
Apple: “The changes we’re announcing today comply with the Digital Markets Act’s requirements in the European Union, while helping to protect EU users from the unavoidable increased privacy and security threats this regulation brings."
Android and Windows have lived in the chaos of open platforms so much that they can shrug off most of these regulations. Apple's entire business model is being a walled garden.
I look forward to having uncensored versions of apps that don't force idiotic American puritanism on me. Who knows, maybe I'd also like to use a proper Python interpreter once in a while or a torrent client.
> Apple's entire business model is being a walled garden
Is it really their business model? They still earn most of their revenue with hardware. I think they‘d do just fine even if they opened up more. Their institutionalized control fetish prevents it.
Apple makes about 40 billion in revenue from iPhones a quarter, and maybe about 20 billion from apps? But keep in mind there are marginal costs for every iPhone sold (manufacturing, distribution, etc) which is not the same as their app store. Their storefront is their real moneymaker.
Aside from that, part of the whole Apple marketing shtick of "it just works" is somewhat at risk.
So to summarize:
You can create your own app store, but Apple controls it, and it will cost you.
You can create your own app store, but only you can publish to it.
You can use your own payment method, but Apple must be allowed to collect data and a large fee from every payment.
You can distribute apps that Apple approved in your app store, but you have to give Apple the data and pay per install.
Not even Google is close to that amount of data collection and greed...
Apple needs a Microsoft-2000s-era slapdown to put them in their place. Regardless of your thoughts on the situation, a mega/giga-corp flaunting the spirit of the rules is a bad sign for the future.
First they need to slim down the hardware offering. I can't even recommend an iPad to family members anymore, because there are so many of them with minor differences. Same for the phones. Even the MBP line is now convoluted with MBP14 getting the baseline M3 processor.
Each of these platforms' value propositions from earlier days was that some day it'd profit from its own controlled ecosystem. This is how they got investment. Apple and Nintendo in particular each held out a long time protecting the brand. There'd be no point in doing that if you're forced to support the competition anyway.
And in each of these markets, users have other options if they want full hardware control. Clearly it wasn't a priority for many of them.
There's a long runway from "early market" to "total domination" to make money for investors. Nobody is shutting down the ability of limited or emerging markets to extract value, but once you reach Apple's size it's an entirely different story.
The runway is less than one human generation, or less than a home mortgage period. Some of these ventures are unprofitable for a decade. If an investor isn't thinking domination early on, they're thinking of getting it to the point where another investor would think that.
I’ve yet to see any company solve the cheating problem in any game. People forget that Valve gave up on the ring0 stuff not because it was unpopular, but because it stopped being effective.
It is not necessarily about "solving" but more about minimizing. I encounter far fewer cheaters on the few consoles I do game on than on the online PC games I play, largely because the barrier of entry to doing cheats on those consoles are much higher. It is not impossible to run cheats on the console but requiring hardware mods, not being able to run certain patch levels, risking blacklisting that hardware identifier, etc. mean far fewer people are willing to do it compared to just running another executable on your computer before you launch the game.
Why? Why should every device that is capable be forced to be capable? This is such a wide held assumption in tech circles. Why is it not good enough that there are devices that allow that while other companies pursue a different business model? I do not see the upside of catering to techie’s entitlement to using every device as they see fit. I certainly see the downside of limiting what business models companies can purse. As as been pointed out it isn[t clear that companies like Nintendo would have been able to make what they have in that regime. And there’s no question that the trajectory of the iPhones would have been different as well.
It is so frustrating to constantly hear that a popular device should be forced to work a different way. The typical reasons given are inevitably tied up with piracy, porn, and techbro condescension revolving around how people should adapt their usage to accommodate their technical superiors. Why can’t people that demand that they should be able to do whatever they want on their device simply use the devices that allow that?
I'm not fond of calling people names, but yes, for all the times I've heard this, nobody has convinced me of why every piece of hardware and software needs to be forcibly open-source or whatever.
Always the same whataboutism in these threads. Do we have to solve all things at once, or do you hold some weird belief that the world must be absolutely fair?
For what it's worth I would answer your question with yes, but this question has no bearing on this thread.
It's already perfect. Those game console-makers etc get to run their platforms the way they want, I get to choose what to buy, and I'm glad that this will probably never meaningfully change.
I mean, if a company is being mandated to do something dumb or bad, I think it's fine for them to say so publicly. They are complying with the law, they don't have to like it, and we don't have to care.
The alternative is PRISM stuff where they were mandated not to disclose any of the regulations they were being put under and society largely suffered for it.
I'm not arguing they are, but they are free to make their point. We all change our tune when companies criticize and fight encryption backdoors.
A key component of fascist economies was that industries were completely captured by politicians and bound to perform the duties of the state. So I pretty strongly believe that companies providing feedback to politicians and the public about the impact of proposed laws is generally a good thing.
This is said as a lifelong Apple hater. I'm enjoying a bit of a popcorn moment here, but I also give them the right to bitch about it a little.
They are correct that there are new risks but there would also be new benefits for consumers. Apple has done a very good job of mitigating the risks and the benefits to their advantage.
Unity also announced that it would retrospectively apply to all developers who already publish games. Apple is apparently going to let developers remain in the current model or opt into the new one, and if that is correct, makes a difference here.
just want to point out that 1 "update" is also considered 1 "first annual install". So essentially you need to pay for previous acquired members/installs. Like for facebook, assuming they have a force update this year, then they need to pay for every iOS install even if it occurred before.
Yes, but only if they proactively switch to the new fee terms. They can still with the current terms (which doesn’t allow non AppStore distribution) and not pay the CTF.
Makes switching to the new fee structure pretty unattractive for a lot of big companies.
The AppStore is a distribution channel. It’s a plausible business model to charge per unit of distribution, just like a freight company might do.
Unity is a game framework/toolkit/engine. It does not do distribution (I sign into unity to download games?). It is literally impossible for unity to even know about the amount of distribution that is happening. That’s why the guy lost his job.
Same way the CEO of McDonald’s would be ousted for instituting subscription based pay for cheeseburgers, even though Spotify can do it just fine.
Except that EU regulators are of a different opinion, that the app store is a _market_ and not a _distribution channel_ and thus subject to antitrust regulations applicable for markets, as can be observed by spelling out the acronym DMA to "Digital Markets Act".
Except Apple’s App Store has a monopoly on half of all phones, and there are plenty of other potential distributors that would be happy to enter and compete but are locked out. Apple wants you to accept that “just a distribution model” position because it helps them further cement their illegal monopoly.
40% in some places, not even that high globally (android wins by a large margin). But android isn't "one company".
In the states, AT&T was a monopoly. They owned phones, the cables, the service, the device in your house... All of it. The rise and fall of ATT is a fascinating story, unix is free today because ATT was a monopoly (it's an interesting side effect not an argument for them).
If you dont like apple, you have the choice of android. If you dont like nividia, you can pick AMD, if you dont like AMD, pick intel. Dont want to get on that Boeing flight, take Airbus...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duopoly they exist all over and sometimes behave like monopoly's! Vendor lock in is real... I dont want to give up my iMessage bubbles is not that much different than not wanting to re-train pilots for something other than a 737 (and we get the max).
Apple is much easier to pick on in this space because they have always aspired to be a vertically integrated company. YKK is a great example of one of these. They (ykk) make the zippers that DONT suck, they are just expensive vs everything else (sound like apple vs android).
SO while the situation with apple might be lamentable, it isnt illegal or uncommon...
So, not a monopoly. If Apple is doing something inappropriate, you'd think we could discuss it without using boogeyman words that describe explicitly different situations.
I love Apple, and I'm frankly shocked that they would put out this statement in its current form. In the opening paras, their barely-contained rage is palpable, and sentences like
> Today, iOS users already have the ability to set a third-party web browser — other than Safari — as their default.
make me wonder if anyone proof-read this thing at all. That said, this is a good day for EU users, and I applaud everyone who worked so hard to make this happen.
The notarization requirement seems quite reasonable, and honestly better than I expected.
The tone seems completely professional? I'm not sure where you're reading the "palpable rage" from. Because they used the word "already"? I'm not seeing it.
> For users, the changes include new controls and disclosures, and expanded protections to reduce privacy and security risks the DMA creates
...
>Across every change, Apple is introducing new safeguards that reduce — but don’t eliminate — new risks the DMA poses to EU users.
...
>The new options for processing payments and downloading apps on iOS open new avenues for malware, fraud and scams, illicit and harmful content, and other privacy and security threats.
That being said I agree with them, the reason android is a buggy, low quality piece of crap is because of their lack of control over their platform. Apple should be able to closely guard the apps that get on users phones because its Apple that will be judged, not the app. We're going to see lots more malware for sure. Lots more dark patterns. I'm not surprised they resent it.
Nobody has installed an app, yet alone a stable one, prior to Apple. My Windows desktop currently is on fire in the corner of my office.
I try to dial 911 on my crappy Android phone but alas, it a buggy piece of shit and catches fire too. "I'll just put that with the rest of the fire..."
I literally have had one app have a problem on my phone in the last 12 months. You know what I did? I reopened it.
Do you even use Apple products? My M1 MBP disconnects from my Airpods and track pad every few hours until I reboot (then it works fine for a few days). Dozens of threads on this. All Apple products being used.
You have to install Chrome from Safari, because its not in the app store, and instead there's a bunch of fake results for Chrome.
There is an entire Wikipedia article on the history of malware for iOS.
The DMS does create a huge set of new risks. That’s clear. Apple has advertised their platform as protecting users from those risks. They need to be able to explain the situation.
These are just facts. I don’t see any anger involved.
Obviously opinions differ on how to manage the risk. A lot of people think a more open ecosystem is worth the risk.
I meant the first two paragraphs. They seem uncharacteristically forceful, and the entire statement seems belittling at times, which is also very unlike Apple.
It’s so surreal to me how every time apple comes up on HN there’s so so many people coming to defend them and applauding them for what they’re doing when, like in this example, they’re clearly trying to manipulate and do whatever they can to seem as if they’re complying while essentially making the situation worse
Yeah it’s incredibly out of character as well. Apple has always been very clear in their comms with end users. While this is directed towards developers mostly, it’s still a public announcement where the tantrum is mixed with incoherent and vague information. The fact that they are not communicating clearly what all these scam/fraud/safety risks are strengthens the belief that this is a tantrum in the style of a kid who’s reluctantly following the parents rules at a friend’s sleepover, but makes it a sport to circumvent them. Perhaps because they can do whatever they want at home?
Also, why have this publicly antagonistic relationship with a large governmental organization in the first place? It reeks of entitlement “we’re above the law” and/or misreading the room that Europeans are unanimously dissatisfied under the tyranny of EU bureaucracy, when that’s not the case at all. In fact, the EU has recovered well in public perception after several massive crises.
Absolutely. If I were an employee I'd be utterly ashamed right now. They had to be dragged into this literally kicking and screaming. Atrocious behaviour.
Sure: "This change is a result of the DMA’s requirements, and means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them. The screen also interrupts EU users’ experience the first time they open Safari intending to navigate to a webpage."
I asked because I didn't have the same opinion of the interpretation of the tone. I read it more directly, as factual statements. Ideally, making a negative statement around an opinion is best followed with an example for the basis of that opinion, if others may not share it.
> 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.
If I'm reading this right (and I did double check this with ChatGPT [0]) if you have an app with two million unique installs annually, you owe Apple 500 000 euros. That seems to include free apps as well.
Weird how nearly every top-level comment pointing out the salty tone of the press release has been flag-killed. It's actually really unique: You almost never see corporate PR dripping with attitude like this one.
The number of Apple fanboys in tech that cheer every anti-consumer move by Apple really boggles my mind. Other companies rightfully get called out, ex: Unity recently, but for Apple they will make excuse after excuse.
You mean the ones which are incoherent or profane? Most of this thread is people talking about the tone so if there’s some conspiracy trying to flag things they’re remarkably ineffective.
What factual objections do you have? Apple can control the safety of their SW and cannot vouch for not-their-sw, so from Apple's point of view this is 100% accurate.
The DMA introduces zero risk. Users are absolutely able to use the Apple App Store, Safari/Webkit, etc like this as they did before.
So no, Apple isn’t factually correct.
In fact, it’s very possible that Gecko or Blink have more secure engines than WebKit. It’s very possible someone can create an App Store that is even more vetted than Apple’s and eliminates scam apps and games whose only purpose is to separate you from your money.
So it’s not only not accurate, it’s probably diametrically the opposite of accuracy and is false.
You need to think about this more carefully: there absolutely is an increase in risk by allowing other parties to run native code on your devices. This guarantees that people will be socially engineered into installing malware, intrusive vendors like Facebook will try to force users to add their stores to bypass privacy restrictions, and employers/schools/etc. will try to force their users to use their spyware for similar reasons.
Now, a not unreasonable position is that this is acceptable but that should be an honest discussion starting with accepting the risk so you can gauge whether it’s a reasonable trade off or whether there are other mitigations. For example, notarization is a useful way for making it harder to install code on someone’s device which the OS vendor cannot see if it’s later associated with malware or which cannot be traced back to a source developer. The next time someone is breached, it’s useful to be able to tell whether the Firefox.app they have installed is an official Mozilla build or pretending to be one.
But the worry here is that you can be tricked into installing all sorts of dangerous malware. Especially now that casual users have been trained to believe that apps are safe.
The DMA absolutely opens up all sorts of new vectors of attack. The question is ultimately a philosophical one -- whether you think the increased freedom is worth the increased risk. Not just for yourself, but for the average non-tech-expert consumer.
You might think the tradeoff is absolutely worth it, but that doesn't mean that it still hasn't significantly increased security risks.
Let’s not forget. This is also the exact same argument Apple used for not having an App Store in the first place and only allowing web apps.
The chutzpah of using this argument to keep the App Store locked down when Apple used the same argument to not have an App Store in the first place is incredible.
These EU laws start with the current circumstances and motivation why the law exists. An objection to why DMA is bad can be found in the first two recitals:
> (1) Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market, by enabling businesses to reach users throughout the Union, by facilitating cross-border trade and by opening entirely new business opportunities to a large number of companies in the Union to the benefit of consumers in the Union.
> (2) At the same time, among those digital services, core platform services feature a number of characteristics that can be exploited by the undertakings providing them. An example of such characteristics of core platform services is extreme scale economies, which often result from nearly zero marginal costs to add business users or end users. Other such characteristics of core platform services are very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multisidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages. All these characteristics, combined with unfair practices by undertakings providing the core platform services, can have the effect of substantially undermining the contestability of the core platform services, as well as impacting the fairness of the commercial relationship between undertakings providing such services and their business users and end users. In practice, this leads to rapid and potentially far-reaching decreases in business users’ and end users’ choice, and therefore can confer on the provider of those services the position of a so-called gatekeeper.
It's a bit long for HN comments (although 257 words is about a minute of reading) but I didn't really know what could be fairly cut out
* Apple has 22 percent market share in EU [1].
* EU Economy is 15 percent of World Economy [2].
* EU population is 5.5 percent of World Population [3].
As someone with a Vision Pro preorder and a developer account, this stuff is really souring me on taking the device seriously as a development platform.
I abandoned iOS development for the web in the 2010s because app review roulette made it too unreliable and stressful to build software on iOS. I had a few semi-successful apps, but it was simply not worth dealing with Apple's opaque review process and restrictive rules to access a limited userbase with bad unit economics. I could make more money building the same software elsewhere with fewer headaches.
I'm very excited to play with new interaction modalities on the Vision Pro, and the device itself looks amazing, but all of this recent news from Apple is not making the Vision Pro seem like an attractive place to think about developing a serious business. It's a shame - I've been a diehard Mac fan for 20+ years, but feel increasingly concerned about their approach here. I hope they change tack.
I wonder what happens if you travel from the US to EU and then back. Will you be able to install alterative browser while in EU and then it gets blocked?
It will apply to EU citizens probably, so who have the location of the Apple account in a EU member state. You can change the location, but only once per half year.
This press release could not be more passive aggressive. Barely a sentence goes by without a petulant remark about gasp being regulated by a system of governance that doesn't pander to big business.
I kind of enjoyed their passive aggressive bitchy tone, it reminded me of sosumi[0]
iPhones have become great with the EU forcing the USB on them, the new capabilities are making me consider a new iPhone despite my iPhone 14 Pro is still excellent. I really want to be able to film directly on external SSD for example.
I think with the DMA, EU is making Apple a favour again by saving them from themselves. Although sales are still great, other brands are doing amazing things and Apple lacks in some areas. I think its very possible that if the developers find ways to do interesting things with iPhones outside the Apple's walled garden, we can see another golden age for iPhone because many things that Apple doesn't allow are simply due to brand protections. Apple can sell more iPhones and people can do questionable things(porn, crypto etc) on their phones without blaming it on Apple. The iPhone has become great but boring, even one can argue that its forcing SV culture over people all over the world. When you don't have to ask Apple employees what you can do on your phone, actual original things can come up. Apple might lose a bit control and revenue but might become the impartial platform of an exciting future.
Apple of the past was the underdog, complete with a more aggressive attitude. Today's apple is the largest (tech?) company in the world, with a highly "refined" corpo-speak sheen.
If they were still small their tone might've been funny (eg dbrand), but coming from a company that no longer plays nice (see: walled garden and anti consumer practices), it just feels cheap and petty.
The EU already has robust digital privacy laws and is likely to continue passing laws to protect their citizens. I think it's much better to take control away from Apple and place it in the hands of regulators that represent the people directly.
I mostly agree with you but from the sounds of the news across the pond it seems like the EU government, as well as our own, wants to eliminate encryption, VPNs or add back doors into systems to some degree.
There are obvious reasons to do so to combat crime but at the expense of privacy, freedom, and anonymity.
And I've quite been happy to see Apple stand up against such government control but fear the trend this will set.
>the EU government, as well as our own, wants to eliminate encryption, VPNs or add back doors into systems to some degree.
This is a continuous concern - some sectors of the EU indeed want to do that. So far, they've been mostly unsuccessful in getting their agenda through, either because other politicians have more influence, or due to listening to public protest/complaints. Still, that's no different than other healthy democracies - the people must vote, both in national elections (EU heads of state propose the European Commission's president to the Parliament), and European elections (who elect said Parliament) in order to keep reasonable people at the helm as much as possible.
> And I've quite been happy to see Apple stand up against such government control
Where, exactly?
Apple complies readily with thousands of warrantless surveillance requests[0] from around the world, every year. They've been a cardholding PRISM program member for over a decade, and just a few months ago admit that push notifications are also government-monitored[1].
Outside of eagerly marketed examples like San Bernadino, Apple appears utterly compliant with government control.
I would say to you that aren’t those very regulators to which you refer doing their very best to weaken the users ability to maintain privacy and not be snooped on? I don’t know about the EU but here in the U.S. there are always pushes afoot to break users control of encryption and other protections.
EU représentatives are literally elected by the population under the same rules as national legislators. EU commissars are appointed directly by the elected governments of EU member states, similar to ministers/secretaries on the national level. Stop spreading misinformation.
"Commissioners are nominated by member states in consultation with the commission president, who then selects a team of commissioners. This team of nominees are then subject to hearings at the European Parliament, which questions them and then votes on their suitability as a whole. If members of the team are found to be inappropriate, the president must then reshuffle the team or request a new candidate from the member state or risk the whole commission being voted down." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner
This is effectively the same procedure that ministers/secretaries are appointed by on the national level. The only difference is that it is not the national legislature, but the EU parliament approving the appointment. And again: the EU parliamentarians are directly (!) elected by EU citizens, according to their national election laws.
So please, please shut up about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.
> Commissioners are nominated by member states in consultation with the commission president, who then selects a team of commissioners.
let's break this down into levels of appointments
how are commissioners selected?
> with the commission president, who then selects a team of commissioners.
ok, so that's one level of appointment (TOTAL: 1)
how is the commission president selected?
they're appointed, by the council (TOTAL: 2)
how are the council members selected? (obviously e.g. the land mass "Germany" can't vote for itself)
who has the council vote? the German Chancellor
how is the German Chancellor selected?
they're appointed by the German Parliament (TOTAL: 3)
who select members of the German Parliament? the German people, so they are directly elected
so that's three levels, matching what I originally said:
> so EU commissioners are "appointed by someone (commission president) who is appointed by someone (head of government) who is appointed by someone (parliament) who is elected"
the statement is accurate
the fact bits of this are rubber stamped by the EU parliament is beside the point, the spitzenkandidat idea was completely killed off in 2019
> So please, please shut up about stuff you obviously don't know anything about.
Not sure why you insist on this, but you are counting wrong:
"Comissioners are nominated by member states". That's it. Yes, the commission president is the one that presents the list of commissioners to the EU parliament, but the member states (effectively the heads of national governments) are nominating the actual candidates.
*Exactly" the same as secretaries/ministers on the national level, who are also nominated by the heads of their respective national governments. Which is fitting, because the commissioners are more or less the EU ministers, i.e. the heads of executive agencies. They are no more or less removed from the voters than their national counterparts. I really don't get what your problem is.
Or you start from the other direction: Voters select their (EU) parliamentarians, parliamentarians appoint the commissioners. End of story.
The vote of the EU parliament is hardly a "rubber stamp". The list of commissioners is negotiated with the parliament and there have been various occasions where the list had to be reshuffled because the parliament would not accept a certain nomination.
Technically speaking no, because regulation is performed by national data protection authorities whereas the people you're speaking of are some members of the European parliament.
Using a cookie or sessions does not equate to spying. Is HN in the EU? Does it use cookies? Absolutely. As far as those useless messages go, I just use a plugin to remove them at this point because they're a waste of resource.
> The EU already has robust digital privacy laws and is likely to continue passing laws to protect their citizens. I think it's much better to take control away from Apple and place it in the hands of regulators that represent the people directly.
Laws don't protect privacy. What protects privacy is technical mechanisms for people to do so.
The very opposite is true. Technical means can't ever protect privacy from a determined attacker.
There is even a country that intercepts and MITMs all TLS traffic (one of the stans, forget which one). Of course, browsers don't recognize their certificate. So, you have a choice: you either trust the government MITM cert yourself, or you don't access the web. Laws trump technology every time.
My most charitable response would be that /both/ are required, but your example is one where law is taking away privacy, not one where law is granting privacy. The law cannot grant privacy, because the law is slow to act. We have recently had cases where the government and private actors/companies have violated privacy rights in western democracies and it took multiple years to see any semblance of justice done, and the victims were not made whole.
Laws that prevent technical mechanisms effectively prevent the enforcement of laws that protect privacy, because bad actors can still break the law. The law provides some means to get justice, in theory, after a bad actor has already violated your privacy. Technical means provide you a mechanism /you control/ to actually enforce that you have privacy. You need both, but the law alone is woefully insufficient.
Unless this user has never used a device running something other than iOS, they've already dealt with this.
But this concern requires a few things to be true:
- An alternative app store is created that does not employ any form of restriction to protect users from this
- Legitimate apps that an end user needs see value in publishing themselves on this alternative app store
- There is a critical mass of users that prefer the alternative app store, such that the legitimate app publisher no longer sees value in publishing to Apple's app store
- As a result, those users who would have preferred the privacy and safety that Apple provides are now forced to use the new app store
This is a possible doomsday scenario, but it's not clear to me that enforcing and protecting a market in which Apple is effectively guaranteed a profit on everyone else's apps is the right solution? If this were to happen, perhaps we address those apps through direct legislation that targets user privacy, akin to what the EU has started to move on? Or a solution similar to this.
I think you may be missing part of what the GP is saying: the concern isn't (primarily) that an alternative App Store will overall become more popular than Apple's. It's that specific apps like Facebook will create their own App Stores whose primary purpose is to distribute their one or small number of apps without the restrictions Apple places on privacy.
So the Facebook app (and Instagram, WhatsApp, and whatever else Facebook owns these days) would be able to collect as much data as the OS itself allows, without any kind of warnings before install.
It could potentially even use private APIs of some sort to bypass Apple's OS-level permissions dialogs and collect data without even asking the user first—it's unclear, at this point, to what extent Apple would be able to police this sort of behavior from motivated bad actors like Facebook when they're not being distributed through Apple's App Store.
iOS is sandboxed so they can’t do anything outside of the context of that app. To use any APIs that would require a permission dialogue you have to make a request to get a handle on them which only happens after a user grants permission, you can’t just reach into these. This is baked into the OS. Apps like the ones you’re talking about already hoover up is much data as possible in this context.
iOS itself is actually really good at this and can be improved and hardened further, Apple wants you to believe it’s somehow their review process and strict distribution channel that makes this possible.
Sandboxing insufficiently addresses this problem as permissions can be granted by the user for legitimate purposes and then once granted they could be abused to violate user privacy.
Yeah I understood that part. My argument is that Facebook would likely lose a lot of users if they forced all users to download Facebook via their App Store. There is still an incentive for them to use Apple’s.
But beside that point, Facebook has been able to force side loading on Android for years and still distributes via the Play Store, so that’s probably at least some evidence that they believe that distribution channel to be worthwhile.
> Unless this user has never used a device running something other than iOS, they've already dealt with this
Right, and they hate it. There's a reason why the iPhone and App Store were such a massive hit. People will choose convenience and security over freedom most of the time.
I hesitate to respond because the idea that Apple is a 3T marketing firm is moronic
Let’s not pretend Apple isn’t building the best consumer silicon in the world and the most secure and user-friendly consumer operating systems in the world. That’s not even considering their supply chain innovations.
Apple devices are superior to their competition in just about every objective measure.
Apple gained popularity long, long before they started developing their own silicon. Sure, they're doing nice things with their vast fortunes, but let's not pretend that's why they're perceived as a luxury product. It's all in the marketing.
You might want to let Jonny Ive know his design org never made a difference lol
Apple was in shambles before the iPod/iPhone. You think the iPhone succeeded because of marketing? You don’t think the fact that they made multi-touch displays easy to use was relevant to their success?
Apple products are so desired that people get resentful when they can’t afford them. Then they post moronic takes on HN from their Samsungs
Let’s be real most people don’t give a shit (unless they’re into emulators apparently), this is really about companies trying to slice up the pie between them.
The idea that Apple is on the side of privacy here is not really realistic. In fact Apple has designed AirDrop etc. to make it easy for countries like China to control AirDrop traffic, and they have put down technological safeguards to prevent actually private tools like Briar from functioning.
> My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store opens or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users options and harm the users ability to effectivly control privacy.
This is massively misinformed. The majority of privacy controls exist in iOS itself completely independently of the distribution method, and many more unimplemented potentially beneficial privacy controls can also be implemented at that level. This has been true for years.
Privacy controls are not a panacea against abuse by malicious developers. Permissions can be granted for legitimate purposes and then abused for nefarious purposes once granted.
Many of the App Store privacy rules relate to what you are allowed to do with the user data after access is granted by the user. In other words they relate to data retention rather than access in the first place.
For example they recently added a rule saying if a user can create an account inside your app you have to also give them an option to delete the account from the app as well. This is a behavior enforced by app review, not by operating system privacy controls.
> Privacy controls are not a panacea against abuse by malicious developers
Sure, I never claimed that they were a panacea - just that the majority of privacy controls implemented by iDevices are actually in iOS and not Apple's App Store review process.
Additionally, those privacy controls are more fundamental than those in the App Store. It's more important that the app not be able to toggle the microphone at will than for you to be able to control what it does with that audio after capture.
> Many of the App Store privacy rules relate to what you are allowed to do with the user data after access is granted by the user
That's not an iOS problem, and Apple fundamentally cannot regulate that, App Store or no - after your personal information goes to a third party's servers, Apple has zero visibility into what happens.
This is also not an Apple-specific issue - this happens with Android, Windows, Chrome, and random online websites. Apple cannot and should not be responsible for fixing this - we need a good set of government regulations designed to restrict how your personal data is collected or used. Otherwise, just like you said, an entity (e.g. a bank) can ask for your personal data, then store it, and it gets leaked.
> Additionally, those privacy controls are more fundamental than those in the App Store. It's more important that the app not be able to toggle the microphone at will than for you to be able to control what it does with that audio after capture.
I mean both are equally important really. I might want to grant you access to my microphone to run a voice command but that doesn't mean I want you to collect my voice recordings and sell them to someone else. I might want to grant you access to my contacts so I can message my friends but that doesn't mean I want you to scrape my contact list to data mine my social network.
> That's not an iOS problem, and Apple fundamentally cannot regulate that, App Store or no - after your personal information goes to a third party's servers, Apple has zero visibility into what happens.
Yes they can. Maybe not perfectly but the App Store Review Guidelines define specific restrictions on what you can do with personal information, with the threat of having your developer account terminated if you violate those restrictions.
> Apple cannot and should not be responsible for fixing this - we need a good set of government regulations designed to restrict how your personal data is collected or used.
Sure, specific privacy regulations would be great, but the government moves very slowly and the government itself isn't going to be able to enforce such regulations on a massive scale in the same way that the app review process currently does.
> I mean both are equally important really. I might want to grant you access to my microphone to run a voice command but that doesn't mean I want you to collect my voice recordings and sell them to someone else.
Throughout this thread you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand how the OS itself works and assume App Store review is somehow protecting you from this, the OS already prevents this.
Even with controls on the device companies act in bad faith and take liberties with your privacy - I was going to the beach yesterday and my friend shared his location through messenger, to view it I had to share my precise location too - why? You can deny the permission all you want but that won’t stop them blocking features unless you tick the box, even if it is unrelated or not needed for the functionality.
That's a clear example of a bad technical control, whose fix can still be implemented in iOS without the App Store. It's pretty trivial to add a feature to iOS that allows you to fake your location - there was an Android fork that had that feature for a while a few years ago.
> You can deny the permission all you want but that won’t stop them blocking features unless you tick the box
Many permissions (camera, mic, location, etc.) are trivial for the OS to spoof and don't require app store vetting.
> My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store opens or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users options and harm the users ability to effectivly control privacy.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The thing protecting people from abusive behaviour should be the government, not a "benevolent" monopoly.
I buy Apple products because in my opinion, they work on my behalf to protect my interests better than the other options available to me.
I think they have been leading in this area and by virtue of competition have pushed other vendors to do the same. I can’t imagine Android based devices would be nearly as privacy focused today if it weren’t for users moving to the Apple ecosystem in search of better security.
That is likely true and I was in that game for awhile but tired of the effort required and the limited hardware that would be fully functional and reliable as a production device.
With Apple it’s just easier and I can focus on other areas of life and just use my phone as the tool it is rather than spending untold hours making everything work.
Truth be told there was a time in my life when I actually enjoyed fiddling with that but I got my fill and am on to other priorities. There is only so much time in the day.
Because by and large they’ve spent the last decade building features that have allowed me to preserve my privacy from companies who’ve spent the last decade trying to pry into my personal life.
Not OP, but Apple tends to be a lot more straightforward in how they make their money. Their products cost more for the same technology, but in return they try their best to provide me with a good experience (to keep me buying their overpriced products). I don't blame those who go with option of Android, but I personally prefer to just pay a set, known amount of money up front.
Only having to deal with Apple's BS is likely better than being at the whims of all the dominant players. The latter creates a race to the bottom with no hope of improving the ecosystem.
I think that's the main reason iOS is slowly eating Android's global market share, and why it remains the market leader in the US. As bad as iOS is for privacy and respecting user choice, Android is worse in practice. There's an argument that Android's openness benefits the end user, but it falls apart in practice: almost all third party apps (and certainly the ones that other people force you to use) depend on Play Services, which is a giant pile of surveillance capitalism and battery drain.
Having said that, I'd like to be able to toggle my iPhone into EU mode and sideload a few things.
I thought that until I tried to switch back to Android, and found that there simply aren't good alternatives to the preloaded iOS software. Try replacing Notes with an E2E-encrypted alternative that supports collaborative editing, for example. I hit a half dozen things like that.
> My fear for end users is that once an alternative App Store opens or direct side loading is allowed it will reduce users options and harm the users ability to effectively control privacy.
This is like some weird 1984 double-speak. How does letting users install Apps from more stores "reduce their options"? Would you have "more options" if I told you that you're only allowed to shop at Amazon.com and your browser will block any competing online retailers? Are you being harmed by the fact that you can buy products from more than one online store?
And the whole secondary argument is some kind of joke right, as 80% of every "free" app in the App Store requests data on your location, sensitive privileges, and all of them use coercive techniques to trick users into accepting. Whatever approval process Apple is is using with the App Store is far from protecting users.
Right now, you can choose between getting Facebook from Apple's App Store, where Facebook has to comply with fairly strict privacy rules to remain available. Or, you can use Facebook on a non-Apple platform where no such rules exist (browser, Google Play). This choice exists because the App Store is the only way for Facebook to practically deliver its product to iPhone users.
If Apple is forced to allow third-party stores, then yes, users have more choices on where to get their apps. But it would allow Facebook to take their app off the iOS App Store and put it somewhere without Apple's stricter privacy rules, taking away the users option to choose a version that doesn't have things like cross-app behavior tracking.
I view it very much as a "pick your poison" scenario, where Apple is merely the lesser of two evils. I would much rather live in a world where government regulation renders Facebook's shitty business practices obsolete, then Apple wouldn't be able to use basic rights like privacy as a product differentiator.
As soon as someone discovers the non-App store version of Facebook is somehow worse then there will be a thousand Facebook posts and articles telling you not to install it that way.
I have an Android phone and I almost always install apps from the store but I have a very important handful of apps that I've sideloaded (or gotten from F-droid). Some of those apps do more to ensure my privacy than "official" ones.
> As soon as someone discovers the non-App store version of Facebook is somehow worse then there will be a thousand Facebook posts and articles telling you not to install it that way.
The problem is, Facebook could easily take the iOS App Store option away and make the alt-store option mandatory. And they have the power to do so and get away with it. People are too entrenched in their ecosystem, and there's no viable path off of it. User protests like this on social media rarely end in favor of the users.
I'm one of the people that quit Facebook entirely, and it does actually hurt me IRL. Too many friends and family members coordinate events and share news exclusively through Facebook.
They could do that now on Android but they don't because the Play store is biggest distribution channel.
I feel like the argument falls a bit flat when sideloading exists on Android, Android has 70% of the global market share, and none of these supposed evils have happened.
As an example: Some EU government could force people to turn on side-loading to install an app that's needed if you want to access public services. The app could bypass your phone's privacy protections, and feed the data back to the local government.
In the US, if Android side-loading were more common, we'd already have this, except that companies would require it.
In the EU, they'd probably crack down on companies that tried to do this. However, although it's technically illegal for governments to do such things, apparently most governments routinely break the anti-mass-surveillance laws.
On iOS, Apple has banned many bad actors for such shenanigans (although they still allow spyware from large companies like meta and google).
Just don't give those entitlements to unvetted apps, then - or require that the user solve a tricky coding challenge before they unlock the ability to grant those. It's not hard.
I think that would be in violation of court order Apple needs to comply with. For instance, they could (probably correctly) say that overriding the default web browser breaks security properties.
The whole point is that the EU wants to take away Apple's ability to vet apps, since that's created an anti-competitive situation.
I guess that's a case of the EU's regulation having negative effects on security, then!
However, this doesn't have any bearing on the argument that user freedom doesn't significantly compromise security - this just shows that the EU made a bad law.
FWIW Huawei smart watches are quite popular in some EU countries, but the Huawei health app needs to be installed on newest Android by downloading an APK because Google kicked it out of Play Store.
Even for me, setting this up and giving necessary permissions was non-obvious.
I don't believe any sane big company (except maybe a few with extremely loyal userbase for whom it would make big financial difference) will pull down their app from official app store and force people to go via an alternative store if they can just stay in regular store.
> An example of this might be the Facebook app. Currently it's only available in the official App Store where by design Apple, on our behalf, defines and enforces policies that protect the users.
My counterargument to that is even the current status quo doesn't work for privacy. Facebook can still get less data from the browser version compared to the app and that's why they are pushing hard for an app install. What would work is tighter sandboxing similar to the web, not custom reviews.
I read that as "expanding protections to reduce (privacy and security) risks ..." but I guess you're reading it as "expanding protections to reduce (privacy) and (security risks) ..."
> Fair competition and level playing field is the only way users get the most benefit.
THAT’s the problem. We don’t have that. Google is the default search engine for the VAST majority of users. Plus Gmail is incredibly popular. And Google Docs, Sheets, etc. Google Maps is king on the web.
And they use every single property to push users to download Chrome.
In top of they can they can break other browsers on their properties whether purposely or through inaction. And that can drive people to Chrome too.
So it’s not a level playing field. Google is already the vast majority of the browser market. The only thing holding them back was Apple’s policy.
Which is now gone in the EU and likely many other places soon.
I contend this will have a huge unintended consequence for the web.
I don’t think Apple should be able to control browsers. But I don’t think Google should have unfettered access either.
And if you do that in the wrong order you screw everyone. And that’s where we are.
I want to be able to install pirated IPA files so I can, for example, use Spotify Premium for free. I have always been able to do this with APK files on Android. Will I be able to do that on iOS after these changes are in place? AltStore is a bit annoying to use.
From other comments I am suspecting this won't be possible so this new regulation is the worst of both worlds: we will be forced to install 3rd-party stores for some apps but we won't be able to install any app we want outside of stores. And on top of that, one of those browser selection popups whenever we set up our device.
A browser engine is indistinguishable from any other app feature, maybe except if it has a JIT compiler. So the complexity is like allowing, say, emulators with a JIT feature. Big fucking deal.
That's not how global free trade works, these laws weren't already established they were added to specifically target American companies which must be in violation of several WTO ordinance.
That is a very strong assertion. Please provide the WTO ordinances in question and/or case law. Unfounded assertions do not add to the discussion.
Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought that had half a chance of succeeding?
Next morning Facebook removes its app from Apple Store and directs users to sideload the app, because it needs those sweet permissions that were denied before.
Apps outside official app store may force you to enable permissions it does not really need, refusing to work without it.
Apps in official store should work with the permissions approved by the store. The “should” is enforced by the store.
There is no topic more popular on HN than European regulations. Thats a pretty sad state of affairs if you think about it. Personally I'd be interested in blocking every thread like this. Though I don't think these regulations will survive because the EU won't survive. Its like discussing Soviet law. Its totally pointless on a tech blog.
I recently visited China, and ended up buying my first iPhone (SE) to go there. The Google/Android situation their is awful. All the Chinese phones have shitty third party app stores, and you can't even install / update your apps without using an international sim or VPN on your international android phone. App store works just fine (filtered but fine).
Isn't this change going to allow China to roll out a shitty knock-off app store and make the iPhone experience just as horrible as Android over there? :(
And if this lets us run real Chrome on iOS, there goes any need for cross-browser testing for smaller websites (and Google themselves). This would make Firefox even less tested and give Google all the power.
Not an iPhone/iOS user myself, but I think this is bad news.
Every android phone maker in China has to curate its own app store, not because it is fun, but google decided to play hard ball. Not saying it's google's fault.
Firefox hardcore user here -- and someone not at all versed in anti-monopoly laws.
Could someone explain why the EU forced Apple to allow alternative browser engines in their own eco-system ("walled garden")? It's theirs, shouldn't they do whatever they want with it? It's not like there aren't any alternatives to iOS - Android is excellent and you can use many different browsers on Android. So... where's the problem?
The EU's position is that a company is large and influential enough, with an entrenched market position, it does not get to "do whatever they want" because of the harm that causes to the economy overall. A monopoly is not a criteria for this.
> a company is large and influential enough, with an entrenched market position, it does not get to "do whatever they want" because of the harm that causes to the economy overall.
I'm not sure I understand: this would be applicable if Apple was the only provider of phone/mobile OS. But... Apple is just one of the players; if I was adamant that Firefox - which, again, I've been using for the past 20 years - is the only browser I want to use on mobile, I'd simply give up on iPhones and buy something else. So, again, as long as I have a choice, where is the problem?
You'll still have the choice to just use Safari and Apple AppStore products, so nothing is changing for you as a consumer. But other consumers will now have more choices. So why is that a problem for you?
Btw, Apple is not "just one of the players". Them and Google completely control the mobile computing software market. Both them and Google are now required to stop abusing their position.
I’m just as much a Firefox fan as anyone, and I use Firefox exclusively on desktop, even going around explaining the benefits, etc. to others.
That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this spreads beyond the EU, that’s practically handing Chrome a monopoly on a silver platter. What’s to stop them?
I would just like to retroactively reply to the objection that the government can just antitrust regulate Google. Ignoring my general distrust of large-scale government regulation on a free market, I would like to point out how long it took the EU to implement these changes since Apple started these behaviors. If Chrome does obtain a monopoly, we’re looking at years before the government even does anything.
>That said, as much as I have complaints about Safari, if this spreads beyond the EU, that’s practically handing Chrome a monopoly on a silver platter.
>Ignoring my general distrust of large-scale government regulation on a free market.
So, free market is fine until free market(the users that will install and use Chrome because it's better than Safari) does something you think it's bad.
Yeah this is what I was intending. I don’t have a problem with individuals using Chrome (I think it’s a bad choice overall but it’s their choice). However “YouTube works best in Chrome” and “GMail works best in Chrome” because they depend on some tracking API, it’s not really the choice of the user anymore.
Good thing WebDRM got delayed ‘cause I don’t want to install Chrome just to use my banking app.
iOS users overwhelmingly prefer Safari. Chrome's market share on iOS is very low and allowing Chrome their own rendering engine isn't going to meaningfully change anything.
Worrying about browser engines was always misguided. Letting 5 people use Gecko will be fantastic until Gecko is so irrelevant that even those people give up.
Vendors like Microsoft having a large userbase attracted to good, reliable software to counter another browser’s overt influence was always the solution. It’s all about users.
25 million people on Firefox is not enough. Neither is 5,000 that switch their rendering engine in iOS. Firefox needs users for relevancy, not its own engine.
To be clear, I’m not outraged by this EU edict. I’m saying it’s irrelevant and misguided as most regulations are.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
"Article 13: Anti-circumvention
4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.
7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement."