Apple Announces Major App Store Changes on iOS in Brazil

[SanderEvers]

Very few iPhones, iPads, and Macs would be sold if there were no 3rd-party apps. Does Apple share a % of hardware sale profits with those who make the profits possible?

Does that happen on any platform? No.

Because on almost every platform you have to pay the platform holder to release software on it. Only real exception is the PC or Mac. (Because yes, on both you can install apps outside of the store)

Nintendo requires companies to pay a license fee
Sony (Playstation) requires companies to pay a license fee
Microsoft (XBOX) requires companies to pay a license fee
Google (Android) is going to introuce a license fee with the new Developer verification

PC/Mac is the odd one out here. And to make it clear, console fees can go from a couple of hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars depending on the size of the company.

Also for example. If you want to release an app on Windows and not have MS Smart screen block it outright. You are going to need a code certificate. Which also costs hundreds of dollars per year. Not to MS, but still it's not cheap. Apple offers those with their $99/year.

If Apple is required to allow apps to install for free, those services might be cut. And it will become more expensive. Since apps still need to be signed.

 

[Abazigal]

Very few iPhones, iPads, and Macs would be sold if there were no 3rd-party apps. Does Apple share a % of hardware sale profits with those who make the profits possible?

Do Nintendo and Sony share any of their earnings?

 

[MacBH928]

While we're on the topic of non-mainstream OSes, there is a reason why Firefox OS, Ubuntu Touch and even the once promising Windows Phone have failed: the market brought up by Google and Apple together is simply too big for potential competitors to handle. It's not that alternative OSes are worse (I myself am quite fond of Sailfish OS) but Google and Apple's de facto duopoly means competition is heavily stifled.

None sense, when Apple launched the iphone their market cap was $279B fixed for inflation. Its not that others do not have money to compete, they are just too afraid to compete. They go for greener pastures where a standard has not been established which is a caveat in the capitalist system.

The reality is that it's just not enough to ship a smartphone OS these days and call it a day. You need to own and control your own ecosystem, and the costs and efforts requires is simply too prohibitive.

again none sense, such money exists. They just decide not to compete and use their money where they feel they are likely to make more back in investment.

Second is that developers simply don't want to support another platform.

this is the main one. I do not see say Adobe building 5 version of Photoshop to support 5 or more competing platforms, but if we can assume that android will be the standard then multiple OS variants can support running the "Android" app.

Third, what even would the selling point of a third smartphone OS be? How would this differentiate itself from iOS or Android?

This is not an Apple or Google problem. It's one of simple pragmatism and economics.

doesn't have to differentiate too much, its an option to choose which company or product to support. I would assume for example that if EU members had an EU made OS they would opt for it over the American one. Another thing is privacy, both android and Apple collect data. Another thing is consumers not creating their own monster, we do not want to live in a world where 1 company controls a whole market segment.

If we went with your logic, we can say what can a toyota offer that a volkswagon does not? what would Ford offer that hyundai does not? they are all cars that take you on the road. Same for light bulbs, tires, tv screens, ssd storage, and almost everything else.

The place a competitive third OS would likely come from is China. But American regulators are working overtime to make sure Apple doesn't have to compete with China.

Apple loves the regulations that let them sell in a China-free hug box. Government intervention for me, but not for thee.

China already have working HarmonyOS which according to latest updates is all native and no longer contains Android code.

 

[MacBH928]

I agree with this, and it's the reason even Microsoft failed to get ahold of a piece of the market. I also think, given these constraints, the next best thing is fostering competition within the two monoliths that have since solidified themselves.

Windows phone failed probably because its software was as horrid as all other Microsoft software. Further more, they figured they will be making more money if they invested their money in Azure cloud systems than competing against Google and Apple. imo, they pulled out too early but they pulled out to make money else where. It was a money grab for them that they failed at.

 

[MacBH928]

Do Nintendo and Sony share any of their earnings?

tbf, console manufacturers sell the hardware for a loss on the hope they make it up in platform fees. In the case of Apple, i believe they make decent profit on each product they sell. But your point still stands, and again, i do believe in the mantra "my platform, my rules"

 

[surferfb]

tbf, console manufacturers sell the hardware for a loss on the hope they make it up in platform fees. In the case of Apple, i believe they make decent profit on each product they sell. But your point still stands, and again, i do believe in the mantra "my platform, my rules"

FWIW console manufactures haven’t sold consoles for a loss in years; Nintendo never has.

I also seriously doubt that if Apple dropped iPhone prices to cost in an attempt to gain market share all of those demanding Apple open up would suddenly say “oh, nevermind then.”

 

[Abazigal]

tbf, console manufacturers sell the hardware for a loss on the hope they make it up in platform fees. In the case of Apple, i believe they make decent profit on each product they sell. But your point still stands, and again, i do believe in the mantra "my platform, my rules"

I believe the Switch 2 and PS5 are sold at a profit. Probably not as handsome as the iPhone, but then we get into a never-ending discussion as to how profitable hardware ought to be before the manufacturer is no longer allowed to profit off app sales (I personally feel there is no reason why these two should be mutually exclusive; there is nothing wrong with Apple selling hardware that is insanely profitable, and then taxing developers 30% on top of this).

On a side note,

Nintendo Switch - Nintendo makes 30% from games sold on its platform.

Playstation - Sony makes 30% from games sold on its platform.

Steam - Valve makes 30% from games sold on its platform. PC manufacturers most notably do not see a cent of this profit, which is why I feel it is ultimately a fool's errand to make windows or steam gaming consoles, where you are just helping to sell another company's software.

Android - OEMs only profit off the initial hardware sale (and competition is mad because anyone can ship an android device), and do not see a cent of app sales.

The conclusion is clear - the most money is made from owning and controlling your own platform, not from being a hardware wrapper for someone else's software.

Apple is right not to capitulate right from the get go. If regulators want their pound of flesh, they will help to fight tooth and nail for it.

 

[2low_tech]

The whole 3-party store thing has been a huge waste of money and failure in the EU.

That's my point exactly. Apple is wasting their time fighting this. Most iPhone users aren't going to use an alternative app store. The impact to Apple's app store revenue to me, is going to be minimal relative to the amount of revenue it generates.

 

[surferfb]

That's my point exactly. Apple is wasting their time fighting this. Most iPhone users aren't going to use an alternative app store. The impact to Apple's app store revenue to me, is going to be minimal relative to the amount of revenue it generates.

I actually think this is a point in favor of the idea that Apple really and truly believes third party app stores are worse for users. As I've said many, many times on MacRumors two things can be true at the same time: Apple's position can both be better for Apple's bottom line AND better for most Apple users.

 

[Squidiey]

Does that happen on any platform? No.

Because on almost every platform you have to pay the platform holder to release software on it. Only real exception is the PC or Mac. (Because yes, on both you can install apps outside of the store)

Nintendo requires companies to pay a license fee
Sony (Playstation) requires companies to pay a license fee
Microsoft (XBOX) requires companies to pay a license fee
Google (Android) is going to introuce a license fee with the new Developer verification

PC/Mac is the odd one out here. And to make it clear, console fees can go from a couple of hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars depending on the size of the company.

Also for example. If you want to release an app on Windows and not have MS Smart screen block it outright. You are going to need a code certificate. Which also costs hundreds of dollars per year. Not to MS, but still it's not cheap. Apple offers those with their $99/year.

If Apple is required to allow apps to install for free, those services might be cut. And it will become more expensive. Since apps still need to be signed.

Linux: cries in the corner

Also check out https://keepandroidopen.org/

 

[MilaM]

I will say it’s as strong as Sony or Nintendo’s claim to fees from games sold through their platforms. You agreed to the terms upfront. It’s not like these companies saw that your app was doing well financially and then slapped on the terms retroactively.

Sure. But intentions and circumstances change. It's well documented, that Apple originally did not plan to make the App Store a major source of revenue and profit. The fee was only meant to cover the costs of running the store. But then the market for digital goods exploded and "services" became a major revenue driver.

Not all contract terms are enforceable. Software companies tried to restrict the resale of licenses and courts largely did not allow that in many circumstances.

 

[surferfb]

Sure. But intentions and circumstances change. It's well documented, that Apple originally did not plan to make the App Store a major source of revenue and profit. The fee was only meant to cover the costs of running the store. But then the market for digital goods exploded and "services" became a major revenue driver.

I'll say that I'd have a lot more sympathy for regulators if they passed a law capping fees on digital storefronts and requiring all digital platforms to allow third-party stores rather than the selective enforcement that's going on now. But since they haven't, it's abundantly clear the issue isn't actually the model or fees, but rather that Apple in particular isn't allowed to sell an integrated product for "reasons". The EU wrote the law to target American companies, Japan specifically excluded their similar law from applying to Nintendo and Sony, etc. So we're left with obvious shakedowns that result in less privacy and less security for iOS users.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

but in app fees and subs now if apple hosted neflix in full then take 30%

 

[MacBH928]

That's my point exactly. Apple is wasting their time fighting this. Most iPhone users aren't going to use an alternative app store. The impact to Apple's app store revenue to me, is going to be minimal relative to the amount of revenue it generates.

you are wrong my friend. When Cydia was around and jailbreaking was possible, many many people were pirating apps. You could get any app on the app store for "free". Since subscription models are on the rise, its even more reason for people to opt for "free" version since to subscribe you need a credit card which is another hurdle in the process.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Apple needs to bite the bullet and just roll this out everywhere. It’s inevitable It’s going to happen no sense waiting for governments force you to do it.

Seriously they need to just rip the bandaid off. Would probably simplify operations internally too.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Seriously they need to just rip the bandaid off. Would probably simplify operations internally too.

I do wonder if it gets to that point eventually.

I'm hopeful that Ternus will chart a new course on issues like this, as well as developer relations in general.

This major changeover, a quite rare event, is the perfect opportunity to reset around some key issues and directions.

 

[I7guy]

I do wonder if it gets to that point eventually.

I'm hopeful that Ternus will chart a new course on issues like this, as well as developer relations in general.

This major changeover, a quite rare event, is the perfect opportunity to reset around some key issues and directions.

I’m going to guess that Ternus is not going to be so quick to give away the store so quickly. Apple is still running a business developers have made big bucks off the platform and Apple has no incentive to change that unless you know bad regulations.

 

[Squidiey]

you are wrong my friend. When Cydia was around and jailbreaking was possible, many many people were pirating apps. You could get any app on the app store for "free". Since subscription models are on the rise, its even more reason for people to opt for "free" version since to subscribe you need a credit card which is another hurdle in the process.

Yep

Piracy is the future

 

[eifelbube]

Do Nintendo and Sony share any of their earnings?

Good point. Both also charge 30% commission for their stores. And, yes, I bet, they do not share any of their earnings either.

However, aside from the fact that Nintendo and Sony really have no ecosystems with a variety of hardware products to lock you in, developers on both platforms are not forced to publish in the store. I can buy FC26, for example, on Amazon. Or popular MMOs like World of Warcraft for Nintendo I can buy at the developer’s website, giving the developers more choices for distribution, whereas Apple gives zero choice for their entire iOS device ecosystem.

 

[eifelbube]

I’m going to guess that Ternus is not going to be so quick to give away the store so quickly. Apple is still running a business developers have made big bucks off the platform and Apple has no incentive to change that unless you know bad regulations.

And if Apple did not make “big bucks” off the developers via the commission and the hardware their software helps to sell, they would have an incentive to expand the distribution system. It is not like they would have to give away the store.

 

[I7guy]

And if Apple did not make “big bucks” off the developers via the commission and the hardware their software helps to sell, they would have an incentive to expand the distribution system. It is not like they would have to give away the store.

No they wouldn’t expand the distribution system, if you follow Apple over the years.

 

[eifelbube]

The EU wrote the law to target American companies, Japan specifically excluded their similar law from applying to Nintendo and Sony, etc. So we're left with obvious shakedowns that result in less privacy and less security for iOS users.

If Apple was based in Australia, Google in China, and Meta in Israel they would be subject to the same rules. The EC is first and foremost targeting digital gatekeepers, excluding —admittedly— one of their own, Spotify, because the rest of the streaming giants —all of which were born and grew their comparatively unregulated market in the USA— would eventually crush their single EU rival.

I know, regulation is said to stifle innovation, but innovation is less of an excuse for abuse in Europe than it is in the US. There’s got to be a middle ground, especially considering the spread of consumer AI (CAI) which —not surprisingly given the lack of regulation— originates in the US. What Facebook did for social media should be a a lesson for the response to CAI. Meta was allowed to run free here and used the freedom to implant addictive algorithms that have been shown to cause psychological harm. This is not going to happen on W Social, the social media platform starting up in the EU right now.

Also, in the EU I can buy Nintendo Switch and PS5 games outside of the respective stores, for example here in Germany. No need for the EC to force these companies to open up, I guess.

What the EC does to blatantly exempt Spotify is not that different than DJT favoring his territory when it comes to doing tariffs business with Europe. 😊

 

[I7guy]

If Apple was based in Australia, Google in China, and Meta in Israel they would be subject to the same rules. The EC is first and foremost targeting digital gatekeepers,

There was no such thing prior to the DMA. It’s an invented term with carefully crafted rules catch American companies.

excluding —admittedly— one of their own, Spotify, because the rest of the streaming giants —all of which were born and grew their comparatively unregulated market in the USA— would eventually crush their single EU rival.

I know, regulation is said to stifle innovation, but innovation is less of an excuse for abuse in Europe than it is in the US.

Innovation is also less pronounced in the eu imo. Correlation?

There’s got to be a middle ground, especially considering the spread of consumer AI (CAI) which —not surprisingly given the lack of regulation— originates in the US. What Facebook did for social media should be a a lesson for the response to CAI. Meta was allowed to run free here and used the freedom to implant addictive algorithms that have been shown to cause psychological harm. This is not going to happen on W Social, the social media platform starting up in the EU right now.

What does the above have to do with Apple and Google and app stores?

Also, in the EU I can buy Nintendo Switch and PS5 games outside of the respective stores, for example here in Germany. No need for the EC to force these companies to open up, I guess.

What about the rest of consoles?

What the EC does to blatantly exempt Spotify is not that different than DJT favoring his territory when it comes to doing tariffs business with Europe. 😊

Good as long as we agree the term gatekeeper is reserved for American companies.

 

[surferfb]

If Apple was based in Australia, Google in China, and Meta in Israel they would be subject to the same rules. The EC is first and foremost targeting digital gatekeepers, excluding —admittedly— one of their own, Spotify, because the rest of the streaming giants —all of which were born and grew their comparatively unregulated market in the USA— would eventually crush their single EU rival.

I strongly suspect the DMA never gets written in that scenario, but of course we’ll never be able to prove it.

Also, in the EU I can buy Nintendo Switch and PS5 games outside of the respective stores, for example here in Germany. No need for the EC to force these companies to open up, I guess.

FWIW Sony and Nintendo still get a 30% percentage of sales that happen outside of their stores! I suspect Apple would have a significantly different tune on the DMA if they got to charge 30% on sales that happens outside outside of the App Store

What the EC does to blatantly exempt Spotify is not that different than DJT favoring his territory when it comes to doing tariffs business with Europe. 😊

Stimmt! You’ll have no argument with me on this one. 🙂

 

[MilaM]

Good as long as we agree the term gatekeeper is reserved for American companies.

I'm curious, what do you think is the motivation for the laws then? Do these lawmakers just dislike American companies? How do you explain that other countries have introduced or plan to introduce similar laws? Is this some kind of hysteria or conspiracy?