Apple Again Changes EU App Store Rules and Fees to Comply With DMA

[NotPr0n]

The claim that “there’s no technical reason” is just incorrect. Apple’s ability to ensure app security relies on centralized control, app review, entitlement enforcement, and rapid response mechanisms. All would be undermined by sideloading. Even with signed apps, distributing through arbitrary websites introduces risks and is significantly less safe than a single App Store, and there are serious consumer benefits to having all app purchases located in a single place, with one account, common standards. People forget how revolutionary "you can download anything and not have to worry about hosing your phone" was in 2008. Normal users were scared to install apps after the viruses of the late 1990s and early 2000s.

By default, iOS would install apps downloaded from websites only if they have been signed by Apple, which would be the case only if the app has gone through the same app review process as App Store apps. That's how Apple could ensure the same level of security for apps downloaded from the web. Visiting any website can be risky for all kinds of reasons, but the iOS apps downloaded from websites wouldn't be any more risky than iOS App Store apps.

 

[TheHeron]

iOS would launch apps downloaded from websites only if they have been signed by Apple, which would be the case only if the app has gone through the same app review process as App Store apps. That's how Apple could ensure the same level of security for apps downloaded from the web. Visiting any website can be risky for all kinds of reasons, but the iOS apps downloaded from websites wouldn't be any more risky than iOS App Store apps.

Honestly even that isn't really ok unless there's an opt out.

On the Mac it's opening Terminal and pasting in sudo spctl --master-disable

Obviously I've done that on all my Macs, because Apple finally crossed the threshold from mildly annoying to ridiculously intrusive as of macOS 14.

 

[jlc1978]

There's no technical reason Apple couldn't allow apps to be installed from developers' websites and still guarantee that those freely downloaded apps would have the same security guarantees as App Store apps. The only reason Apple doesn't want to allow this is because they want their cut, just like a mafia.

Sure, and tehre is no reason why Apple should not be able to charge developers to do that. To use your city analogy, I lived somewhere where you could take your trash to the dump for free, but if I wanted trash pickup I have to pay the city each time I use the service.

I don't care if Apple charges developers a $500 per download fee and 99% of in-app purchases - as long as I can bypass the app store and download software directly from developers instead of using Apple's store.

Sure, just allow me to set the security level I want to impose on apps, up to and including full sandboxing of information. There is no reason a game should get any data from me, even when I play it; unless I want to share the information.

 

[breenmask]

Yes this is why the App Store on Mac is such a joke.

great but that context is not what we're talking about.

 

[TheHeron]

Sure, and tehre is no reason why Apple should not be able to charge developers to do that. To use your city analogy, I lived somewhere where you could take your trash to the dump for free, but if I wanted trash pickup I have to pay the city each time I use the service.

That's absolutely fine - as long as I can install apps WITHOUT having them signed by Apple.

Sure, just allow me to set the security level I want to impose on apps, up to and including full sandboxing of information. There is no reason a game should get any data from me, even when I play it; unless I want to share the information.

Agreed 100%!!!! I should be able to sandbox apps from any data, including blocking them from being able to access the internet at all. I'm annoyed that on the Mac I have to use a 3rd party firewall to block app internet access. Little Snitch is great software, but I shouldn't need it.

 

[breenmask]

I just got impression that you are trying to use consoles case as an example why iOS should stay more closed

I'm arguing on principle. If iOS is forced to do one thing, all platforms like it should apply. It should be fair for everyone, not singled out just because Apple is a big company. EU arbitrarily decided XYZ metric for applying gatekeeping status which makes no sense to me.

And Apple (and everyone else affected by the new laws) should be compensated for government's late decision. Apple spent billions of dollars in infrastructure into this business model, then being forced to change the model is not exactly fair.

I guess i can guess that this is your email and take my words back that you're not a gamedev, gool luck with this hard work and messing with consoles from me! As an little indiedev in a free time i can feel how hard and annoying all of this can be. Sorry for being harsh!

👍

I hope since i found that quote on dev portal, you should not pay for other things to nintendo except devkit hardware.

The quote specifically refers exclusively to "development". Release is a separate category I believe.

We already know that from other games in other platforms, submitting an update costs $$$$. Fez for Xbox ran into that issue and shutdown IIRC because they didn't want to pay for another update submission to fix bugs. It was so bad that Microsoft was forced to make it free https://kotaku.com/xbox-live-stops-charging-studios-to-patch-games-fez-cr-618474541. Who knows if Nintendo followed suit.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Do you see iPhone mirroring in EU? 🤣
Do you enjoy filling your credit card details in 50 different web services?
Do you like not remembering which subscriptions you signed up for instead of having it all in one place?

You always had the choice of buying Vbucks outside the App Store for lower cost, so the benefit of DMA is hardly there.

1: we will see after iOS 26 releases
2: why would I? Can use ApplePay, klarna or password manager with the card remembered.
3: I remember everything I signup for and never pay it through iOS because it’s always more expensive for zero benefits. My Netflix subscription isn’t available yet

4: you never had the ability to buy it within the app in a convenient manner without paying Apple a tax 🤷‍♂️

Yes, I believe Apple would be within their rights to do that. It's no different than Apple deciding the annual developer fee now is $1 million. It's their platform, the apps don't function without using Apple's intellectual property, and Apple doesn't have anywhere close to a monopoly on the desktop OS. (For sake of argument, I am assuming this would be moving forward - obviously secretly changing the terms after consumers have already purchased the device presents many issues). That's not to say it's a good idea, or I would approve, but they would be within their rights to do so.


Apple's platform is not public infrastructure. It's a privately built and maintained ecosystem that advertises a tight and integrated user experience. Comparing it to a mafia, which relies on illegal coercion and violence, ignores the fact that developers voluntarily choose to build for iOS because of its market, tools, and (most importantly) user base. Unlike the mafia, Apple creates value and operates under legal scrutiny.

The better analogy is a mall. What you're saying is "How dare the fancy mall charge rent for access to the desirable customer base it has attracted. Stores DESERVE access to the mall's customers - I should be able to set up a pop-up store next to the food court and not pay the mall anything."

If you want access to that mall's customers, you need to pay the mall owner for use of their property in the way the mall owner wants to be paid. And yes, in most desirable malls, stores are required to pay a percentage of revenue in addition to rent and utilities. If you don't like the mall's terms, you don't have to open a store there.

Let’s skip the mall analogy and go with something that actually fits the power dynamics: Apple is a corporate town.

You’re not just “renting space in a fancy mall” you’re living and working in a town where Apple owns the roads, the housing, the bank, the advertising boards, and even the sheriff’s office. Want to set up shop? Sure, but:

• You have to pay a cut of your earnings, even for transactions you make outside the town.
• You’re not allowed to tell residents where to buy things cheaper unless Apple says you can.
• And if Apple opens a competing store, they get the best spot in town, and know exactly what your customers are buying.

 

[surferfb]

Let’s skip the mall analogy and go with something that actually fits the power dynamics: Apple is a corporate town.

You’re not just “renting space in a fancy mall” you’re living and working in a town where Apple owns the roads, the housing, the bank, the advertising boards, and even the sheriff’s office. Want to set up shop? Sure, but:

• You have to pay a cut of your earnings, even for transactions you make outside the town.
• You’re not allowed to tell residents where to buy things cheaper unless Apple says you can.
• And if Apple opens a competing store, they get the best spot in town, and know exactly what your customers are buying.

If you don’t like the rules no one is forcing you to develop for iOS. It’s not complicated.

Apple built the platform and attracted the users. If you want access to their users then follow their rules. You don’t deserve access to Apple’s IP just because you want it.

If you as a consumer have a problem with that, leave. If you as a developer have a problem with that, don’t sign the developer agreement. Don’t take away a closed platform MILLIONS prefer when there is an option that meets your preferences.

The entitlement and selfishness is mind boggling. “My preferences are more important than the platform owner and millions of their customers. How dare you ask me to use a platform that better fits my preferences? You have to be less safe and have a worse ecosystem because I should get my cake and eat it too!”

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If you don’t like the rules no one is forcing you to develop for iOS. It’s not complicated.

Apple built the platform and attracted the users. If you want access to their users then follow their rules. You don’t deserve access to Apple’s IP just because you want it.

If you as a consumer have a problem with that, leave. If you as a developer have a problem with that, don’t sign the developer agreement. Don’t take away a closed platform MILLIONS prefer when there is an option that meets your preferences.

The entitlement and selfishness is mind boggling. “My preferences are more important than the platform owner and millions of their customers. How dare you ask me to use a platform that better fits my preferences? You have to be less safe and have a worse ecosystem because I should get my cake and eat it too!”

It’s more mindboggling you think it’s selfishness and entitlement over something you own.

As you mentioned HOA befor. They are completely illegal here for a good reason. And if you tried to do that you would end up in a lot of trouble for violating the other people’s property rights.

The platform owner stops being the owner the microsecond the property is sold to the end user. And leaves Apple servers.

And again. The closed platform have never existed. Your loosing something you never had.

 

[surferfb]

It’s more mindboggling you think it’s selfishness and entitlement over something you own.

You’re the one cheering on the government changing the rules, picking winners and losers, and taking away the preferred choice from people like me in the EU because you don’t want to use Android. Why is your preference more valid than mine or Apple’s when there’s an option that does what you want. How is that not peak selfishness? Honestly?

As you mentioned HOA befor. They are completely illegal here for a good reason. And if you tried to do that you would end up in a lot of trouble for violating the other people’s property rights.

Unsurprisingly, given my thoughts on Apple, I think if people want to live an HOA they should have the ability to do so. No one is forced to buy a house in a HOA, and the rules are given to you before you put an offer in on the house to make sure you agree with them. They do come with benefits, which is why people buy houses in them, and pay the HOA monthly fees to live in the communities.

The platform owner stops being the owner the microsecond the property is sold to the end user. And leaves Apple servers.

Disagree. That’s like arguing “I bought a Star Wars DVD so I can write a Hans Solo novel without paying Disney.” Apple still owns the IP, and should have say in how they get compensated from third parties using their property to make money and how that property is used.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yea, I suspect restructuring on a per d/l plus monthly access fees for any non-fully free apps may be an end game; or a total revenue model like EPIC's.

Will be hard to justify to exclude free apps without violating the non discriminating clause. And hard to justify per d/l plus monthly access for non AppStore related apps.

I suspect if Apple lowered their fees below the costs o other stores they would drive all but the major palyers out of business.

Unlikely considering alternative stores likely can’t be charged a fee and have their nieces or compete on service quality etc

Depending on how it plays out, Apple should also be allowed to not host apps from competitors' stores such as EPIC apps for free; but go to a total revenue model like EPICs so once an app is over $11 million, EPIC starts to pay Apple 12%. Same for Spotify.

Don’t think Apple should be allowed to deny apps for being on other stores unless they pay for exclusive access.

And revenue share in my personal opinion think should only be allowed if you use Xcode to develop the apps just like epic does with UE5 developers.

How it is financed is largely irrelevant.

Regarding to your question for: how long they can run it, it’s very relevant as they can do it indefinitely because of their pc game store revenue .

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You’re the one cheering on the government changing the rules, picking winners and losers, and taking away the preferred choice from people like me in the EU because you don’t want to use Android. Why is your preference more valid than mine or Apple’s when there’s an option that does what you want. How is that not peak selfishness? Honestly?

Full vertical integration is 100% the same. Apple just can’t enforce vertical integration on other peoples property. No winners and losers are picked. Government changes rules all the time but they still are the same basic premise.

My preference is more valid because it’s my property. Property rules takes precedence. And if you don’t like that then you should rent your iPhone. And Apple should have leased out their devices 🤷‍♂️

Unsurprisingly, given my thoughts on Apple, I think if people want to live an HOA they should have the ability to do so. No one is forced to buy a house in a HOA, and the rules are given to you before you put an offer in on the house to make sure you agree with them. They do come with benefits, which is why people buy houses in them, and pay the HOA monthly fees to live in the communities.

If you want to do that here you would need to rent the property and purchase a share. The issue is still a contract can’t sign away any rights you have 🤷‍♂️

Disagree. That’s like arguing “I bought a Star Wars DVD so I can write a Hans Solo novel without paying Disney.” Apple still owns the IP, and should have say in how they get compensated from third parties using their property to make money and how that property is used.

If I bought Disney merchandise there absolutely nothing they can do to dictate what I do with that copy.

Selling the hansolo novel is breach of copyright and is done irrespective if I purchased a DVD.

 

[breenmask]

1: we will see after iOS 26 releases

you missed out on a whole year so already you were harmed

2: why would I? Can use ApplePay, klarna or password manager with the card remembered.

Not all stores support that. For one, Steam doesn't support ApplePay and I don't see klarna. And using a password manager is still extra steps. Quite often I have to autofill first name, autofill last name, card number, address, etc... one by one because websites weren't implemented properly. And that's their service storing your details with god knows what security.

3: I remember everything I signup for

You might. Plenty don't. There are even services that will help you figure out what subscriptions people signed up for because people don't remember: https://www.rocketmoney.com/

4: you never had the ability to buy it within the app in a convenient manner without paying Apple a tax 🤷‍♂️

IIRC the $9.99 for 1000 vbucks was the same outside of the app at the time. It was the same on Nintendo Switch/Playstation/Xbox too. You didn't pay more. It wasn't until Epic announced a "price-cut" for epic direct payment in app which got them banned. It was only a 20% price cut too, not 30%. They knew they were going to get banned so that "permanent price-cut" was essentially for show.

 

[deevey]

It's not an instant fix, but it is the digital equivalent of teaching a man to fish. Everyone should be more digitally aware and we don't achieve this by mollycoddling them. And we certainly don't do it by entrusting the entire stack to a single unaccountable tech firm with their own agenda.

I might have trusted the Apple of 2015 to do it but the Apple of 2025 is not the same company at all.

We live in a world where people with nut allergies need a packet of nuts to have it stated that it contains nuts.

You think society is ready to take responsibility for their digital footprint?

If it were only stupid individuals that were affected by their actions I'd be fine with it, but a security breach of one persons device potentially affects every person that they have been in contact with through that device as well and makes them unwitting targets despite doing everything right.

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is a good read on this from dev Jeff Johnson.
Below is just a snippet. The whole thing is great though.

What I found striking about the search differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is that in creating this distinction, Apple clearly considers App Store search to be a developer feature rather than a user feature. In other words, the user's interest in finding an app via search is disregarded, and Apple is willing to be less helpful to users to the extent that app developers pay a lesser commission to Apple. A common talking point in defense of Apple's App Store lockdown on iOS is that the App Store is supposed to be for the benefit of users rather than developers. Apple's new policies give the lie to that notion.


From my own perspective, it's been obvious for a long time that the App Store is intended primarily for Apple's own financial benefit rather than the benefit of Apple users. Here's an App Store exact match search for my app...

...The top search result is not my app. It's an advertisement for an unrelated app with a completely different name, Blip Delivery.

App Store search is not a user feature

 

[jlc1978]

Will be hard to justify to exclude free apps without violating the non discriminating clause. And hard to justify per d/l plus monthly access for non AppStore related apps.

Not excluding them, just if an app charges for add-ons then Apple should be free to apply a consistant per d/l and/or hosting fee.

Unlikely considering alternative stores likely can’t be charged a fee and have their nieces or compete on service quality etc

However, if Apple provides access to a large user base for a smaller cut than other stores, developers have o incentive to be on those stores; and stores that are trin to be an independent store without having access to funds from a larger corporation that owns them may find it hard to stay in business on app store revenue alone. Cydia, for exmaple, charge d30% for access.

Don’t think Apple should be allowed to deny apps for being on other stores unless they pay for exclusive access.

Perhaps, but Apple should not be forced to host an EPIC app for free while EPIC makes money off of d/ls from the app store.

And revenue share in my personal opinion think should only be allowed if you use Xcode to develop the apps just like epic does with UE5 developers.

I only did a quick read, but it appears EPIC wants you to pay if you are on the store, regardless of the engine; although they also have a set of rules for apps that use the UE, even if it is not on their store, IIRC. For iOS apps, EPIC wants a cut after $1million and they certainly don’t use the UE so why should EPIC collect money but not Apple? It seems to me reasonable for Apple to take a stance similar to EPIC’s.

I simply have a different opinion, which is if you decide to be on the App Store, Apple has a right to make money from what value it brings to you.

Regarding to your question for: how long they can run it, it’s very relevant as they can do it indefinitely because of their pc game store revenue .

EPIC perhaps, but at some point they have to decide if the financial cost is worth the poke in Apple’s eye. More to the point, smaller stores will have a hard time to make a go of it at what Apple charegs small developers and large ones have no need to be on a bunch of stores.

Niche porn, pirate, gambling, etc. sites will probably do ok but charge a lot more or be good vectors for malware.

 

[wbeasley]

following that logic, google would deserve a finder fee for many things 😂

Google gets a lot of money for pushing "found things" up the list... promoted items listed prominently

 

[turbineseaplane]

A different Jeff here with some good ideas:

I love his closing thought and idea of "make being in Apple's store mean something"

 

[wbeasley]

Maybe this is the key to the puzzle:

• Apple to charge whatever they want for apps listed on app store; here Apple is the channel and entitled to finders fee
• Allow downloading apps through external link with just developer tech fees; here Apple has not contributed to anything but dev tools

Yes that's the solution... let Apple decide if an app is free or not.
Like any physical store.

Apple sets a price rather than the app dev...
so Spotify who dont want to play by the rules gets hit with an initial download fee charged to the user.
For providing the app and infrastructure and tools.

Companies who play by the rules get free downloads with external sub fees.

I dont get all the crap about in app payments.
It isnt hard to subscribe outside. All Spotify users do it currently.
You do it once. You sign in, it works.
Apple not involved. End of story.


That change to charging would really set the cat amongst the pigeons

 

[wbeasley]

Honestly even that isn't really ok unless there's an opt out.

On the Mac it's opening Terminal and pasting in sudo spctl --master-disable

Obviously I've done that on all my Macs, because Apple finally crossed the threshold from mildly annoying to ridiculously intrusive as of macOS 14.

MacOS is not iOS.

Different aims from the start.
iOS devices werent meant to be locked down consumer devices for billions of users not open devices for millions who are usually a lot more tech smart.

There are lots of Mac users who never go near Terminal app...

 

[wbeasley]

Apple could even keep the money flowing... let users subscribe to the app like Spotify.
If you use it, you pay the Apple fee monthly.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Saw this comment that cracked me up 😂

"The EU threatened to fine us for our anti-competitive behavior, so we rebranded it in hopes of not getting fined""

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

I must say I am surprised to see so many people championing socialism in this day and age. Declaring property a private entity spent time and money building to be public property is literally socialist.

If we didn't have the advantages of an open system to compare it to, taken in isolation there would be nothing wrong with it. But there are plenty of people who put up with the limitations of iOS because they love the Mac so much.

We are at Id argue a dangerous crossroads in computing, where decades of corporate control has infantilised the general public into relying too much on them. Is the public ready for that much freedom? They might want to be Cypher and be plugged back into the Matrix!

I can see your point, and I do agree to an extent. Sure, we need to educate people to be safer and more knowledgable around tech, but it's rather utopian to think that you can educate the entire world, or maybe dystopian if we're saying only the educated count, the luddites don't count. If you can't grasp technology, you don't matter.

If Apple were a government dictating what can and can't be done within their borders then they've morphed from a promised land to what we'd call them the ultimate totalitarian nanny state. It's easy to say people can just go to Android but extracting all your data is not that simple. Apple operate their barriers like Checkpoint Charlie.

"If wishes were horses, everyone could ride" as my Nan would say. I know it's not simple to switch platforms, it took me plenty long enough to completely switch from a lifetime of DOS/Windows to Macs, but I know if I don't like the way macOS is developing, as many don't, I can go back to Windows, or the FOTM Linux distro. One of the principle reasons I don't want to use Android is because it is already where people are trying to force iOS!

Ultimately Apple could just implement the protections they have on the Mac to the iPhone and call it a day. The EU would be happy. Every user would be happy because they're already happy with the Mac. Instead they choose to bury things under a paranoid level of bureaucracy that says more about the way the company is being ran than any leaks about board chaos ever could. It's like they lost all confidence in their own product lines.

A specific subset of users would be happy. An iPhone isn't a Mac, despite the fact they're technically closer than ever.

Users don't even know what's going on.
If someone takes your money from your house and you don't even realize it, you're still being robbed. Right?
Call it extortion from developers or users, the substance doesn't change: Apple has been forcing payments that have nothing to do with the services they offer to pass through their money-grabbing system. Laws in the EU clearly didn't allow that. There have been rulings. Apple still wants that money. Facts.

So make Apple keep running the system, but take away their right to charge for it. They're wealthy enough, they can run it all for a nominal dev fee, it can make a loss, they can afford it. (/s)

Seriously though, does a business not have a right to charge fees for use of a service? What would you consider a fair way for Apple to recoup the cost of running the App Store?

I've never seen so much FUD and paranoia.

Too may folks have been completely "Apple narrative pilled" here.

Based on some of these comments, you'd think using macOS is like being dropped off in a third world country with gold jewelry on.

I'd implore some of you to at least consider that you've been highly influenced by Apple pushed business narratives.

On the flip side, I want to know what gives people the right to unilaterally declare that the environment I prefer to use should be banned, by law, from existing. An iPhone isn't a Mac, I don't expect them to use the same system.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

you missed out on a whole year so already you were harmed

That’s no different with most features take a year or two to get to EU or never leaves the states. Same with Apple Card wallet ID etc.

I have posted a list on that somewhere here.

Not all stores support that. For one, Steam doesn't support ApplePay and I don't see klarna. And using a password manager is still extra steps. Quite often I have to autofill first name, autofill last name, card number, address, etc... one by one because websites weren't implemented properly. And that's their service storing your details with god knows what security.

Not all but it’s expanding. Now PlayStation have it. Steam might do it in the future but when I buy game keys from other places or store kredit I only use ApplePay.

I use my iPhone for most things as it just doesn’t vibe with windows ever since safari support was dropped and iCloud Keychain doesn’t support Firefox

You might. Plenty don't. There are even services that will help you figure out what subscriptions you signed up for because you don't remember: https://www.rocketmoney.com/

Easy when you don’t subscribe to many things. But I will not pay 30% more just for the privilege of it being in the AppStore settings.

IIRC the $9.99 for 1000 vbucks was the same outside of the app at the time. It was the same on Nintendo Switch/Playstation/Xbox too. You didn't pay more. It wasn't until Epic announced a "price-cut" for epic direct payment in app which got them banned. They knew they were going to get banned so that "permanent price-cut" was essentially for show.

And epic should have been allowed to have this price cut but unfortunately no the price was not the same between the PC and iOS store

This is true for just about every app.

 

[Ctrlos]

A specific subset of users would be happy. An iPhone isn't a Mac, despite the fact they're technically closer than ever..

Forgetting the advantages of competition on the open market for a second and Apple's lack of confidence it it's own products let's assume the exercise is just to get the EU off their backs permanently. That's the goal from Apple's point of view.

They could implement some pretty robust safeguards to protect the end user. The first is already there in everyone: subtle paranoia. We've all been 'educated' into knowing that apps from outside the App Store (or Play Store) might be dodgy and so we subconsciously avoid it. I sideload a few things on Android but I'm not stupid enough to download the apk files from anywhere other than GitHub.

The second could ape their theft protection feature. You lock sideloading away behind 3 yes/no security doors. The last one requires waiting an hour for the option to un-grey itself. This immediately stops malicious agents from instantly adding a dodgy ipa file to your phone. You then sandbox the actual sideloading of the files to the Files app itself (so scammers cannot use Safari or any other browser) with a biometric confirmation being required to do so with no password option.

You then remove all liability on Apple's part with a change to the EULA.

That would be enough to satisfy the EU but still offer enough protection to essentially 'scare' the end user into never activating the feature disguised as security protections.