> 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.
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?