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

[Sophisticatednut]

That isn’t “we didn’t tell them to hold off and then fine them for holding off.” Why wouldn’t they say that? Because they clearly must have told them to hold off, and they know Apple has the receipts. You can go back and retcon that any way you like, but it’s clearly either complete incompetence or bad faith.

Because they aren’t fined for holding off. They are fined for still breaking the law.

In what world would a “I wanted to stop running red lights, but the police told me to wait for their feedback.”

Work as a defense that your continues to break the law? If your telling the officer that you offer to just run it when the lights are broken you will still be fined for still running the red light… Apple has the initial order for what they should stop doing.

Remember EU has already corruptly declared iPadOS is a gatekeeper despite not meeting the quantitative metrics written into the law. They’re are not acting in good faith.

Read the DMA

The entire law is a bad faith interference in the free market to try to harm American companies and avoid hitting EU ones in an idiotic attempt to regulate themselves out of an innovation hole caused by burdensome regulation.

Bad faith while completely within EU law. And based on legal precedent cases.

They’re not charging developers for communicating with end users. They’re charging developers for other services and use of IP Apple deserves to be compensated for.

Oh are they? It’s neither proven

And in the document you’re quoting, it says “the commission takes the view that…” - the commission doesn’t automatically have the correct interpretation of the law, as we’ve seen repeatedly with Vestager’s frequent trips to the EU court system over the years. It very well may be Apple’s interpretation is correct.

The document I’m quoting is from 2024, that’s the preliminary finding.
This is the decision of this month

EUR-Lex - 52025DMA100109 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

And you should check up on your cases. She has quite the record of being correct.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Allow musicians free access to their platform and to incorporate ads, subscriptions, etc

Access to Apple's App Store - or developer subscription - isn't free.
And neither does the EU require it to be.

Personally, having lived through the old days of distribution and seen what it costs, 15% is really a good deal considering what a small developer gets for the money, and even 30% is a good deal for companies making millions.

We're not living in the olden days anymore. Software distribution isn't on physical media anymore, costs are a fraction and market volume (particularly on mobile app stores) has scaled up tremendously. Even Gruber recently acknowledged:

"Nobody wants to build on a platform where the starting point is a 70/30 split in 2025"

"What company thinks they’re getting a great financial deal from Apple right now with the App Store as it stands? I don’t know of anybody. Maybe some games, because games... The game industry is sort of 70/30 everywhere. Maybe."

Did Apple get too big for its own good?

Daring Fireball’s John Gruber discusses the future of the App Store and why Apple’s court losses are such a big deal.

www.theverge.com

why do Apple have so much confidence in a product like the M4 Mac Mini that it practically sells itself with zero marketing and yet no confidence that their App Store offering won't retain developers compared to the competition without miring them in bureaucracy?

Because they know that their 30% rate isn't competitive under market competition. Not anymore.

Maybe, maybe customers will eschew other stores out of convenience - but assuming an alternative store becomes popular, Apple's rate won't compete.

 

[Beautyspin]

The EU should breakup Apple App Store from Apple and make it an independent company. Let Apple Pay the same fees any other company. Problem solved. I think Apple will not stop these shenanigans until the EU forces this on Apple.

 

[Ctrlos]

The EU should breakup Apple App Store from Apple and make it an independent company. Let Apple Pay the same fees any other company. Problem solved. I think Apple will not stop these shenanigans until the EU forces this on Apple.

What we could do with is a span-off App store that was also compatible with other platforms. If a developer submits an app across iOS, Mac, PC or Android then you'd only ever need to buy one licence.

 

[surferfb]

Riddle me this: why do Apple have so much confidence in a product like the M4 Mac Mini that it practically sells itself with zero marketing and yet no confidence that their App Store offering won't retain developers compared to the competition without miring them in bureaucracy?

Apple clearly thinks it is entitled to payment for use of its intellectual property. I know you disagree, and apparently the EU does too, but it’s not a communist dictatorship and property rights matter.

And I agree with Apple - Apple should be paid by developers using Apple’s property to make millions upon millions of dollars.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Allow musicians free access to their platform and to incorporate ads, subscriptions, etc. while still hosting the songs. They are after all, the major player in the EU and dictate to musicians what they will pay.

They are still not an economic bottleneck to undertakers. And it’s free for you to put your music on it. It just has to be through a record label.

Spotify licenses the songs from them. Nothing is purchased or sold. So makes as much sense as opening up Netflix or the AppStore

That's the hard part, what is access to such a lucrative user base worth? Can a develper survive without it solely on EPIC's store?

Developers can just multihome. The cydia developers survived and that was an ultra niche market.

Personally, having lived through the old days of distribution and seen what it costs, 15% is really a good deal considering what a small developer gets for the money, and even 30% is a good deal for companies making millions.

The EPICs can no doubt go it alone, but at what cost in terms of access to customers?

Even EPIC has made it clear they want a cut if you make serious money of their store.

They take a cut for store purchases, their in app purchase mechanism and using their engine.

If you use your own engine and payment method then you pay zero for anything outside the store page.

Windows store have 0% for software and 12% I believe for games.

Yea, Apple needs to restructure that to be more like EPICs where it is a cut of revenue, not just a flat fee. That way, a developer with a completely free app pays only the fee, everyone else pays a sliding scale based on revenue. Apple could also charge a d/l fee for apps that sold non-digital goods or provided services such as banks, government institutions, etc. to compensate for hosting the app; or charge a different developer fee for such apps.

Apple can’t provide discriminatory agreements. So selling a digital pizza or a physical one is equivalent. Except for corporate types such as nonprofit, university, NGO etc as they are distinct legal entities.

I suspect, looking ahead, the next battle will be over fees for develpers to access features such as AI. Apple could incorporate a base set of on device AI features that is accessible, but more advanced ones using their cloud infrastructure could require a separate fee or subscription. Apple could, to avoid self-preferencing, charge a subscription fee, much like they do with iCloud, to us eit with Apple's own apps, and charge developers to incorporate it into theirs.

Looking how Siri has worked they might try but can see it happening considering there no incentive to use their AI servers compared to chatGPT

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple clearly thinks it is entitled to payment for use of its intellectual property. I know you disagree, and apparently the EU does too, but it’s not a communist dictatorship and property rights matter.

And I agree with Apple - Apple should be paid by developers using Apple’s property to make millions upon millions of dollars.

Then Apple need to provide that Ip. And surprise suprise they didn’t. Only two was provided for the interoperability case but nothing in this one.

 

[surferfb]

Then Apple need to provide that Ip. And surprise suprise they didn’t. Only two was provided for the interoperability case but nothing in this one.

Apple should be under no obligation to provide IP to anyone it doesn’t want to. Again, property rights are supposed to matter.

Or should Ford get BMW’s engine designs for free?

 

[surferfb]

Because they aren’t fined for holding off. They are fined for still breaking the law.

In what world would a “I wanted to stop running red lights, but the police told me to wait for their feedback.”

Work as a defense that your continues to break the law? If your telling the officer that you offer to just run it when the lights are broken you will still be fined for still running the red light… Apple has the initial order for what they should stop doing.

If a police offer says “run through the red light” and then immediately pulls you over for running the red light, that is entrapment, and illegal. It’s also the officer acting in bad faith. Which is what the EU is doing here.

Read the DMA

Bad faith while completely within EU law. And based on legal precedent cases.

I have, in English and German.

Just because you add a section saying “we can write a biased report (like they incredibly biased one that led to the creation of the DMA in the first place) and declare you a gatekeeper even though you don’t meet the qualifications we determined matter” it’s still operating in bad faith.

Oh are they? It’s neither proven

The document I’m quoting is from 2024, that’s the preliminary finding.
This is the decision of this month

EUR-Lex - 52025DMA100109 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

And you should check up on your cases. She has quite the record of being correct.

Per this link, “47% of the antitrust decisions first issued under Margrethe Vestager’s leadership have been at least partially overruled by the CJEU upon reaching the Court, with more cases likely to follow.”

 

[delsoul]

This is really sad to read. Just goes to prove the point that the EU is bad for business. Doing business there is pretty close to operating a business in Little Italy where the local mob shakes you down once a week for “dues”. Hopefully we can see the EU be more fair to businesses in the future.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Just goes to prove the point that the EU is bad for business. Doing business there is pretty close to operating a business in Little Italy where the local mob shakes you down once a week for “dues”.

Many would say that's what Apple has been doing to developers on iOS/iPadOS actually.

It's sort of why all this regulation and discussion is taking place to the degree that it is.

 

[delsoul]

Many would say that's what Apple has been doing to developers on iOS/iPadOS actually.

It's sort of why all this regulation and discussion is taking place to the degree that it is.

Except they they’re not. Nobody is forced to use their App Store. If you don’t want to, you simply don’t. I’ve downloaded plenty of apps that weren’t hosted on the App Store. I just simply go to the business’s website. The Little Italy example gives zero choice. If you want to do business, you WILL get shaken down. That’s exactly what the EU is doing. No way around it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple should be paid by developers using Apple’s property to make millions upon millions of dollars.

Not disputing their right to do it.
As long as they charge non discriminating fees to everyone.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Nobody is forced to use their App Store. If you don’t want to, you simply don’t. I’ve downloaded plenty of apps that weren’t hosted on the App Store. I just simply go to the business’s website.

Do you have some examples?
I can't say I've done that personally.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple should be under no obligation to provide IP to anyone it doesn’t want to. Again, property rights are supposed to matter.

So Apple should just be able to make the claim ”ip rights” while actually not having a single Ip right registered…

Seems pretty nice. Will fill my ip claim against Apple and not prove it’s real. .

Or should Ford get BMW’s engine designs for free?

Ford is free to put a BMW engine in their car. And so is anyone with any car. BMW have zero right to bar me from putting in that engine

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is really sad to read. Just goes to prove the point that the EU is bad for business. Doing business there is pretty close to operating a business in Little Italy where the local mob shakes you down once a week for “dues”. Hopefully we can see the EU be more fair to businesses in the future.

You know the mafia is just a private security company making sure the safety is guaranteed. You can’t just run a business in their territory without compensating them fairly.

It’s part of the lease you agreed to it

 

[Ctrlos]

Apple clearly thinks it is entitled to payment for use of its intellectual property. I know you disagree, and apparently the EU does too, but it’s not a communist dictatorship and property rights matter.

And I agree with Apple - Apple should be paid by developers using Apple’s property to make millions upon millions of dollars.

That's not an answer though. Apple are so paranoid about people leaving that they need to essentially punish people for doing so. That suggests a complete lack of confidence on their part that developers would stay around at all.

It's oxymoronic compared to other parts of the business. Imagine if Apple were so worried about haemorrhaging customers to Windows that they told the general public that they had to pay Apple a 50c fee every time they edited a photograph in the Windows gallery just because it was taken on an iPhone!

Devs should pay a few to Apple to use the App Store of course. But they shouldn't be doing so it they decide to use a different store any more than I should pay Walmart any money because I decided to sell my Potatoes at Wholefoods, even if I used Walmart-branded fertiliser to grow them.

Apple should see this as a valuable business opportunity. They're already making it so you can build Android apps with Swift. Why not extend that to Xcode and release the dev tools for Windows? They'd own the entire stack by building a better product and widen the pool of available developers. Apple are at their best when they stop giving a different answer and instead ask a different question. Opening things up could make them a fortune but they're too blind to see it.

 

[surferfb]

So Apple should just be able to make the claim ”ip rights” while actually not having a single Ip right registered…
Seems pretty nice. Will fill my ip claim against Apple and not prove it’s real. .

I believe iOS is registered to Apple.

Ford is free to put a BMW engine in their car. And so is anyone with any car. BMW have zero right to bar me from putting in that engine

You’re free to jailbreak and install any app today. Apple can’t bar you.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If a police offer says “run through the red light” and then immediately pulls you over for running the red light, that is entrapment, and illegal. It’s also the officer acting in bad faith. Which is what the EU is doing here.

Please show where this is done because EU has zero obligation to greenlit your options. You have to implement them first. Standing still is your choice and you pay the fine for standing still.

EU have never give them the approval to run the red light. Apple has literally been given the order that describes the outcome needs to be and they was still incapable of following it. By implementing the same thing despite being told every time it’s not complicit

I have, in English and German.

Just because you add a section saying “we can write a biased report (like they incredibly biased one that led to the creation of the DMA in the first place) and declare you a gatekeeper even though you don’t meet the qualifications we determined matter” it’s still operating in bad faith.

The report isn’t supposed to be neutral.

Everything is codified. You’re effectively complaining over nothing legally. Just philosophically

• Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
• End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
• Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.

Per this link, “47% of the antitrust decisions first issued under Margrethe Vestager’s leadership have been at least partially overruled by the CJEU upon reaching the Court, with more cases likely to follow.”

Perhaps read on…

• The CJEU overturned only one of DG Comp’s decisions on Article 102 over this period. None of the decisions initiated by Margrethe Vestager under Article 102 has been overruled by the CJEU to date.
• The antitrust cases that Margrethe Vestager lost on substantive grounds during her tenure were largely tied to disputes over economic assessments.

Except they they’re not. Nobody is forced to use their App Store. If you don’t want to, you simply don’t. I’ve downloaded plenty of apps that weren’t hosted on the App Store. I just simply go to the business’s website. The Little Italy example gives zero choice. If you want to do business, you WILL get shaken down. That’s exactly what the EU is doing. No way around it.

Little Italy give you the same choice. Move somewhere else if you want the customers that live there you agree to the mafia company ToS

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I believe iOS is registered to Apple.

I belive Apple sold the software to users and exhausted their rights.

As I referred to you previously.

Directive - 2009/24 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

3. The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.

You’re free to jailbreak and install any app today. Apple can’t bar you.

Oh how come? I thought you said it’s their property? How you’re gonna have it?

 

[surferfb]

That's not an answer though. Apple are so paranoid about people leaving that they need to essentially punish people for doing so. That suggests a complete lack of confidence on their part that developers would stay around at all.

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think you’re projecting your thoughts as a power user onto Apple. Android has shown us the vast majority of customers aren’t going to install third party stores and sideloading.

Apple thinks “iOS is ours, developers should be thankful to be on our platform, and how dare you make us give away our hard work for free.”

It's oxymoronic compared to other parts of the business. Imagine if Apple were so worried about haemorrhaging customers to Windows that they told the general public that they had to pay Apple a 50c fee every time they edited a photograph in the Windows gallery just because it was taken on an iPhone!


Devs should pay a few to Apple to use the App Store of course. But they shouldn't be doing so it they decide to use a different store any more than I should pay Walmart any money because I decided to sell my Potatoes at Wholefoods, even if I used Walmart-branded fertiliser to grow them.

I disagree with your assumption Apple is afraid. And if your plants wouldn’t grow without Walmart’s continued maintenance of fertilizer (even after you bought the fertilizer), then I’d argue Walmart is entitled to payment for that work, even if you’re selling your potatoes at Whole Foods.

Apple should see this as a valuable business opportunity. They're already making it so you can build Android apps with Swift. Why not extend that to Xcode and release the dev tools for Windows? They'd own the entire stack by building a better product and widen the pool of available developers. Apple are at their best when they stop giving a different answer and instead ask a different question. Opening things up could make them a fortune but they're too blind to see it.

I’d argue you want them to answer the same question as Microsoft and Android. They are asking a different question, and the EU is saying “No! That’s not allowed! All must be the same!”

 

[surferfb]

I belive Apple sold the software to users and exhausted their rights.

As I referred to you previously.

Directive - 2009/24 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

3. The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorisation of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.

That doesn’t say “and is allowed to use that computer program to sell computer programs to third parties without compensation to the original program’s owner.“

 

[jlc1978]

Access to Apple's App Store - or developer subscription - isn't free.
And neither does the EU require it to be.

Which is why I clarified it with:

Spotify, IIRC, can already block music regionally, so it would be a small step to incorporate per user blocking f artists who charge subscription fees if a user didn't subscribe. The label uses a 3rd party payment system, or choses to stream ads instead of charging a subscription fee as an option as well.

The lable pays Spotify a $99 access fee, much like the developer fee, and Spotify hosts and streams. After a label makes say $1million a year on a song, Spotify gets 12%.

While it was somewhat in snark, why should a streaming service be treated differently than any other provider of digital goods?

We're not living in the olden days anymore. Software distribution isn't on physical media anymore, costs are a fraction and market volume (particularly on mobile app stores) has scaled up tremendously.

Value drives price, not costs. In th end, Apple should allow sideloading and be free to charge whatever they want for their App Store. If a developer doesn't like it, well they can go elsewhere if they think they can find a better deal.

Apple should also be free to decide not to carry any app, since there would be alternatives to distribute it.

even Gruber recently acknowledged:

"Nobody wants to build on a platform where the starting point is a 70/30 split in 2025"

Then don't; no one is forcing you to. For small developers, it's 85/15 and I suspect that is a hard deal to beat given all the services they get from Apple for Apple's 15%.

This fight has never been about the consumer or small developer, but big companies fighting over who gets what.

Maybe, maybe customers will eschew other stores out of convenience - but assuming an alternative store becomes popular, Apple's rate won't compete.

Who knows? I suspect only a large corporation will be able to run an App Store with low rates and make a go of it since other products can subsidize the store. I also suspect developers will find things like complying with local tax laws in a bunch of jurisdictions a challenge and expensive, and 3rd party payment systems expensive for low price apps once the % and swipe fee are included.

At any rate, it's fun to grab the pop corn and watch what happens and what collateral damage occurs.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I don’t think that’s true at all. I think you’re projecting your thoughts as a power user onto Apple. Android has shown us the vast majority of customers aren’t going to install third party stores and sideloading.

Apple thinks “iOS is ours, developers should be thankful to be on our platform, and how dare you make us give away our hard work for free.”

I disagree with your assumption Apple is afraid. And if your plants wouldn’t grow without Walmart’s continued maintenance of fertilizer (even after you bought the fertilizer), then I’d argue Walmart is entitled to payment for that work, even if you’re selling your potatoes at Whole Foods.

I’d argue you want them to answer the same question as Microsoft and Android. They are asking a different question, and the EU is saying “No! That’s not allowed! All must be the same!”

You effectively don’t believe in private property… the first seller maintains all exclusive rights for any downstream revenues streams is a ludicrous and anti business principle.

The implication of selling something is just perpetual leasing and renting something while using random words.

Plus your so dishonest. Never is anything given away for free. The only way you can argue that is IF:
1: iOS devices are sold for 0$
2: Xcode is provided for 0$
3: development agreement is 0$
4: every agreement is a free license agreement.
5: side loaded apps are distributed without Apple’s input

And this is on its face ludicrous.
1: iPhones are sold for >0$
2: Xcode can’t be used for commercial purposes if used for free
3: development agreement is 99$/ yesr
4: the agreement isn’t free.
5: 100% of sideloading apps are pre verified by Apple.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That doesn’t say “and is allowed to use that computer program to sell computer programs to third parties without compensation to the original program’s owner.“

It does. Go up and read Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.

2. Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used\' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet

An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used\' licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet <img alt=”” src=”j12_94.eni\/Pictures

ec.europa.eu