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

[surferfb]

I have no qualms with it as a great option for folks, somewhat like on the Mac.

There was an alternate reality here where none of this gets to where it is now, likely if Apple had just gotten down to far more reasonable rates over time.

That said, I still think it should be more like the Mac, with notarization and the ability to install from wherever one would like, given an adjustment to settings (more advanced users only, again, like on the Mac).

I totally agree Apple has made some unforced errors along the way, some of them very serious, but I’m not sure proactively lowering rates would have fundamentally changed anything. People like Sweeney were never going to be satisfied paying anything, and regulators, especially in the EU, seem opposed to the very idea of a closed ecosystem at all.

In fact, you could argue that if Apple had ceded ground early on, they’d be facing even more pressure now. Once you start making concessions, critics tend to push for more. Holding the line (rightly or wrongly) may have actually slowed the tide a bit.

 

[breenmask]

I do think it would be beneficial for Apple to loosen its grip a bit.

I disagree. Overall it wouldn't be beneficial for Apple or the users to loosen its grip.

Plenty of users enjoy the simplicity. It's either yes, you can install this app or no, you can't install this app. There is no "yes, you can install this app if you do XYZ first"

At the end of the day the Mac works well despite not requiring the App Store

Mac started off as open. iOS started off as closed. Both platforms had billions invested in infrastructure under that pretense. Changing either platform to do the opposite would be devastating to at least one party involved.

 

[Ubuntu]

I disagree. Overall it wouldn't be beneficial for Apple or the users to loosen its grip.

Plenty of users enjoy the simplicity. It's either yes, you can install this app or no, you can't install this app. There is no "yes, you can install this app if you do XYZ first"



Mac started off as open. iOS started off as closed. Both platforms had billions invested in infrastructure under that pretense. Changing either platform to do the opposite would be devastating to at least one party involved.

Then I’m happy to agree to disagree.

 

[breenmask]

Then I’m happy to agree to disagree.

Great. I'm fine with that.

 

[wbeasley]

Did I say that? I'm not, really, no. My PS5 has a disk drive because I don't like Sony having complete control over the prices of digital purchases. Same goes for my Switch.

And I guess I won't need to go for Android because it seems the walled garden is crumbling. I don't enjoy it, especially as a developer, but tbh Apple could have avoided this. Look at how they're responding to the DMA. First time it was so maliciously compliant and now they're stepping back a bit but it's of course just unnecessarily complicated so that no one will use it. The result? Probably more legal action against Apple. Great.

your joy at seeing a system that works extremely well and safely for the overwhelming majority being pulled down ...

Sony make good money on every disc sold too. And they hate the supply chain that chews into their margins.

The DMA isnt about the consumer. Prices wont fall.

Apple is complying to the vague wording and direction and using every option available to keep the system they created and invested in that customers are buying into.

This isnt the Berlin Wall falling.

With a million apps available and billions being made by developers, many small ones, this just opens the door to piracy and less money to devs. And safety issues. But you know that. Great. Not...

 

[wbeasley]

Overall, I agree. I like the simplicity of the App Store, I like that all my subscriptions are in one place etc.

Then why have alt app stores?

I'm at a loss what tangible benefit you really want and why that need outweighs the others using iOS who are happy with how it is and you have an open alternative readily available to you...

 

[Ubuntu]

Then why have alt app stores?

I'm at a loss what tangible benefit you really want and why that need outweighs the others using iOS who are happy with how it is and you have an open alternative readily available to you...

I think Apple should have less control, especially when they have their own apps involved. Also, competition is good. They already started making adjustments once they allowed for alternate app stores because of competition so it’s a win for the consumer overall IMO. Sure, there’s the risk of apps leaving the App Store but if Apple makes it competitive then it should be OK

 

[Ubuntu]

your joy at seeing a system that works extremely well and safely for the overwhelming majority being pulled down ...

Sony make good money on every disc sold too. And they hate the supply chain that chews into their margins.

The DMA isnt about the consumer. Prices wont fall.

Apple is complying to the vague wording and direction and using every option available to keep the system they created and invested in that customers are buying into.

This isnt the Berlin Wall falling.

With a million apps available and billions being made by developers, many small ones, this just opens the door to piracy and less money to devs. And safety issues. But you know that. Great. Not...

Not much to add here but have you seen all the scam apps on the store? The App Store genuinely does very little against that.

 

[wbeasley]

Not much to add here but have you seen all the scam apps on the store? The App Store genuinely does very little against that.

long stretch there.

if you read an app review and rating it's not that hard to pick a reasonable app.

outright scams are very few. and many have been removed over the years.

and refunds arent that hard to get.

big difference between scam and malware as well...

 

[wbeasley]

I think Apple should have less control, especially when they have their own apps involved. Also, competition is good. They already started making adjustments once they allowed for alternate app stores because of competition so it’s a win for the consumer overall IMO. Sure, there’s the risk of apps leaving the App Store but if Apple makes it competitive then it should be OK

why should Apple have less control?

I think Apple should have less control, especially when they have their own apps involved. Also, competition is good. They already started making adjustments once they allowed for alternate app stores because of competition so it’s a win for the consumer overall IMO. Sure, there’s the risk of apps leaving the App Store but if Apple makes it competitive then it should be OK

"i think Apple should have less control"... sorry, but you didnt come up with the product. you buy it and use it if it does something of worth to you as advertised.

if you dont like it, buy something else.

or develop your own hardware and software and app store and market it ... etc.

i dont want apps leaving the official appstore. i wont buy them. simple.
you take your app out, then no sale...

"should be OK"??? we are hanging on a should? really?

it works now. for customers and app devs. it makes money. lots of it.
and if you dont like paying Apple, make the app free and set up a subscription outside.

if you cant work out how to pay for Spotify on their webpage then that's Spotify's issue, not Apples.

 

[Ubuntu]

why should Apple have less control?



"i think Apple should have less control"... sorry, but you didnt come up with the product. you buy it and use it if it does something of worth to you as advertised.

if you dont like it, buy something else.

or develop your own hardware and software and app store and market it ... etc.

i dont want apps leaving the official appstore. i wont buy them. simple.
you take your app out, then no sale...

"should be OK"??? we are hanging on a should? really?

it works now. for customers and app devs. it makes money. lots of it.
and if you dont like paying Apple, make the app free and set up a subscription outside.

if you cant work out how to pay for Spotify on their webpage then that's Spotify's issue, not Apples.

Eh, I think once we've reached the "Buy something else" point in the discussion there's not much point in continuing, thanks

 

[surferfb]

Eh, I think once we've reached the "Buy something else" point in the discussion there's not much point in continuing, thanks

I mean, shouldn’t the onus be on you to explain why blowing up something that has existed for 17 years, and that millions of people prefer, is the right move when there’s a perfectly good alternative that you can’t be bothered to use?

I think we’d all agree “The government should make Rivian sell a gas car because I don’t want to drive a car from competitor that offers gas cars” would be ridiculous.

So why isn’t “the government should make Apple open up because I don’t want to use a phone from a competitor that offers an open ecosystem” just as ridiculous?

 

[djphat2000]

Apple do not seem to get it, the DMA is basically saying you cannot charge developers for using external links. If an app developer wants to put an external link in their app that tells the user to go to the app developers website to upgrade or buy stuff, Apple is saying the app developer has to pay for this feature and the DMA is saying no they shouldn't.

The EU will wait till Apple implement it's changes and then hit it again saying they are breaching the DMA.

Does the DMA state that Apple is not allowed to charge for external purchases? I was under the impression that Apple was allowed to charge.

 

[laptech]

Does the DMA state that Apple is not allowed to charge for external purchases? I was under the impression that Apple was allowed to charge.

It is not about external purchases, it is about app developers wanting to put external links in their apps that move the user to an external website without the app developer being charged to do so.

Could you just imagine if the owners of the chrome browser said to web developers that if they want to use links that take them away from their website they must pay a fee. There would be uproar but yet when Apple do basically the same thing the majority of people are saying Apple is justified. No they are not and the EU are making sure Apple do not rip off app developers by getting them to pay for god knows what.

 

[wbeasley]

Eh, I think once we've reached the "Buy something else" point in the discussion there's not much point in continuing, thanks

well buy something else IS THE ANSWER when a product you want DOESN'T do what you think it should

your DESIRES do NOT outweigh the majority of people (given sales continue to grow regardless of the control over what goes on a phone) needs

 

[Ubuntu]

well buy something else IS THE ANSWER when a product you want DOESN'T do what you think it should

your DESIRES do NOT outweigh the majority of people (given sales continue to grow regardless of the control over what goes on a phone) needs

Now you’re just being nonsensical, assuming things I never said. Also, your use of caps is quite weird 😆

 

[Ubuntu]

I mean, shouldn’t the onus be on you to explain why blowing up something that has existed for 17 years, and that millions of people prefer, is the right move when there’s a perfectly good alternative that you can’t be bothered to use?

I think we’d all agree “The government should make Rivian sell a gas car because I don’t want to drive a car from competitor that offers gas cars” would be ridiculous.

So why isn’t “the government should make Apple open up because I don’t want to use a phone from a competitor that offers an open ecosystem” just as ridiculous?

No, I meant that saying "if you don't like it, go buy something else" isn't a great argument. I can purchase products and still want them to be better. I'd just like it if:

- app review wasn't a pain to work with. Common dev complaint but they'll basically hold back important updates because of the most trivial things that have been around for years and don't even violate the guidelines, sometimes refusing to back down until you get your Apple dev evangelist involved.
- you didn't have to first build your idea and then hope app review doesn't reject it, IMO it stifles innovation.
- Apple didn't compete with apps while they essentially don't have to pay the 15-30% fee. Seems like a conflict of interest and leads to...
- a poor UX in those third party apps. Sure, Rakuten, Spotify, Amazon & Netflix could just let users buy in their apps but then they have to pay that fee, and couldn't even mention that you can go elsewhere until regulation stepped in. Yay for regulation? 🤣

As I've said elsewhere, I ultimately don't want the App Store to fragment - it makes my life as a user and a developer easier. But I also see why companies, including mine, want the choice to use different payment methods etc, without people just saying "Well just go to Android then" - that's a terrible business choice.

Look at the Mac. Sure, it started without an App Store but IMO if users were so attached to the idea then the apps that left the App Store would have suffered, but they seem to still be doing OK.

But at the end of the day, Apple blew it, and here we are. Even with this latest round of changes they've made it so intentionally complicated that no one will use it and that'll probably just result in even more regulation. Yay.

 

[Abazigal]

It is not about external purchases, it is about app developers wanting to put external links in their apps that move the user to an external website without the app developer being charged to do so.

Could you just imagine if the owners of the chrome browser said to web developers that if they want to use links that take them away from their website they must pay a fee. There would be uproar but yet when Apple do basically the same thing the majority of people are saying Apple is justified. No they are not and the EU are making sure Apple do not rip off app developers by getting them to pay for god knows what.

So Nintendo is ripping off app developers by preventing them from linking to external payment options that would allow them to avoid paying a 30% cut?

I mean, I could be mistaken. Feel free to correct me if game developers are allowed to sell their titles in the switch App Store, and somehow get to keep 100% of game revenue by working around Nintendo's house rules.

 

[laptech]

So Nintendo is ripping off app developers by preventing them from linking to external payment options that would allow them to avoid paying a 30% cut?

I mean, I could be mistaken. Feel free to correct me if game developers are allowed to sell their titles in the switch App Store, and somehow get to keep 100% of game revenue by working around Nintendo's house rules.

Your another one who is not understanding this specific issue but I am too bored of having to explain myself time and time again (other threads on the same issue). You carry on complaining and moaning about the EU's DMA and I'll just pass on by.

 

[MilaM]

So Nintendo is ripping off app developers by preventing them from linking to external payment options that would allow them to avoid paying a 30% cut?

Game consoles don't facilitate trillions worth of transactions. Or do you use your Switch to order food, cabs, pay, listen to music, chat with your friends? It's a niche of a niche. It's a bad comparison.

 

[Abazigal]

Game consoles don't facilitate trillions worth of transactions. Or do you use your Switch to order food, cabs, pay, listen to music, chat with your friends? It's a niche of a niche. It's a bad comparison.

Last I checked, Apple doesn't take a cut of money spent on physical goods such as food delivery, ride-sharing, grocery shopping or gadgets I buy through the amazon app. Smaller developers pay only 15%, which is more or less comparable to what third party payment systems are charging anyways.

Second, I am supposed to believe that someone like Tim Sweeney is fine with Sony and Nintendo keeping 30% of IAP made via his Fortnite app, but not when it's Apple? Especially when it gets the bulk of earnings from the playstation console, not mobile gaming.

Fortnite’s cash cow is PlayStation, not iOS, court documents reveal

Console players bring in a lot of money for Fortnite.

www.theverge.com

Seems like the main beneficiaries of this are the biggest developers who already make a ton of money, who then get to make even more money? I guess if cheering on bad actors like Epic and Fortnite is what floats your collective boats...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[martint235]

I mean, shouldn’t the onus be on you to explain why blowing up something that has existed for 17 years, and that millions of people prefer, is the right move when there’s a perfectly good alternative that you can’t be bothered to use?

I think we’d all agree “The government should make Rivian sell a gas car because I don’t want to drive a car from competitor that offers gas cars” would be ridiculous.

So why isn’t “the government should make Apple open up because I don’t want to use a phone from a competitor that offers an open ecosystem” just as ridiculous?

Do millions of people prefer it or tolerate it as necessary to get the hardware/OS/ecosystem they want?

 

[wbeasley]

Now you’re just being nonsensical, assuming things I never said. Also, your use of caps is quite weird 😆

nonsensical is a government forcing a company to open a system they have successfully sold for 15 years for a very small number of noisy complaint makers.

who cant even state what they want to run on these devices that is so desirable.

especially when there is a alternative device that would let them do what they complain about.

users vote with their wallets.
Apple have been EXTREMELY successful in parting buyers from their money.
operating how they have all that time.
they killed off Palm and Nokia with a device that resonated with buyers.
developers have made a lot of money selling apps or giving apps away you can subscribe to.

even on this site, it's always a very small number of people complaining.
from a group with thousands of tech loving, savvy users.

 

[wbeasley]

Game consoles don't facilitate trillions worth of transactions. Or do you use your Switch to order food, cabs, pay, listen to music, chat with your friends? It's a niche of a niche. It's a bad comparison.

so "niche" that games make more money than Hollywood...

gaming and devices is not tiny. not at all.

the reason you cant order food etc in your list is because Nintendo CONTROL what apps go on the device.
more control than Apple do.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

No, I meant that saying "if you don't like it, go buy something else" isn't a great argument. I can purchase products and still want them to be better. I'd just like it if:

- app review wasn't a pain to work with. Common dev complaint but they'll basically hold back important updates because of the most trivial things that have been around for years and don't even violate the guidelines, sometimes refusing to back down until you get your Apple dev evangelist involved.
- you didn't have to first build your idea and then hope app review doesn't reject it, IMO it stifles innovation.
- Apple didn't compete with apps while they essentially don't have to pay the 15-30% fee. Seems like a conflict of interest and leads to...
- a poor UX in those third party apps. Sure, Rakuten, Spotify, Amazon & Netflix could just let users buy in their apps but then they have to pay that fee, and couldn't even mention that you can go elsewhere until regulation stepped in. Yay for regulation? 🤣

Yeah, Apple has a fair bit of room for improvement here. I’ve got an app I want to eventually make, once I’ve got on top of all my current obligations and freshened up my decades out of date 1st semester software engineering skills, so I’ve been paying a little attention to things.

As I've said elsewhere, I ultimately don't want the App Store to fragment - it makes my life as a user and a developer easier. But I also see why companies, including mine, want the choice to use different payment methods etc, without people just saying "Well just go to Android then" - that's a terrible business choice.

Look at the Mac. Sure, it started without an App Store but IMO if users were so attached to the idea then the apps that left the App Store would have suffered, but they seem to still be doing OK.

I don't know that this follows. Since the Mac predates digital App Stores, ad hoc software sourcing and installation is the standard method used by all. The fact that the Mac App Store didn’t just die years ago, and continues to contain and sell many apps is an argument in its favour, I reckon. I know I certainly would get all my Mac apps from the App Store if I could, I appreciate the centralised payment and update systems.

But at the end of the day, Apple blew it, and here we are. Even with this latest round of changes they've made it so intentionally complicated that no one will use it and that'll probably just result in even more regulation. Yay.