They are really asking for a hefty fine. Instead of scrapping the ridiculous fees, they invent new ones. I'm really looking forward to the day when Apple will pay the price for this ... 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Loosens App Store External Linking Rules and Changes Fee Structure in European Union
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This new fee schedule is extremely confusing.
Do I have to pay extra for using my iPhone on the loo now or not?
🤔
Do I have to pay extra for using my iPhone on the loo now or not?
🤔
Don’t worry. It’s coming soon to Macs as soon as they are able to
and when adobe creative cloud apps come to Linux they are done.
adobe is not going to give apple 30% of creative cloud subs. They can just go windows only / drop the mac apps.
This is good. Third party market places lead to lower “Apple taxes” and thus benefits consumers and businesses alike.
There will be scammy stores. But just like I don’t go to “joes scam shack” to buy my tennis shoes, I will choose to go to reputable stores, like Amazon or Nike, directly.
There will be scammy stores. But just like I don’t go to “joes scam shack” to buy my tennis shoes, I will choose to go to reputable stores, like Amazon or Nike, directly.
When developer will understand this, i-any-device will be dead.
macOS isn't a core platform service and isn't governed by the DMA. Apple is mostly free to what they want.
I don't think it's clear at all.
The EU Commission said they would look into if the Core Technology Fee breached Article 6(4) of the DMA:
"The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall, where applicable, not prevent the downloaded third-party software applications or software application stores from prompting end users to decide whether they want to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default. The gatekeeper shall technically enable end users who decide to set that downloaded software application or software application store as their default to carry out that change easily.
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper."
I don't see anything which makes it abundantly clear a fee is illegal.
Time to go after the consoles too.
It will happen eventually.
Whatever ($$$) is blocking it now won't do it forever.
It will happen eventually.
Whatever ($$$) is blocking it now won't do it forever.
im continually confused how consoles dodge this requirement...
So if you were CEO you‘d have chosen that path for Apple, or are you thinking you’d enforce this as an edict across all industries?
That precisely is the point. If I hand someone millions of customers, you better believe I’m getting a cut. That’s how business works. I understand many have a childlike expectation that Apple should do this for free, but that’s beyond unreasonable.
You’d still exist, but you wouldn’t be an iPhone app developer’s CUSTOMER. Read more.
Article 13, Anti-circumvention
The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.
Apple will try to argue CTF isn't a "behaviour that undermines effective compliance," but the EU courts will probably rule otherwise.
Highway robbery in the AppStore or especially alternative app stores still violates DMA.
As a company I wouldn‘t care about all those Apple rules. Rules that violate the DMA are void. Nevertheless the EU will invesrigate, again and Apple will change, again …
As a company I wouldn‘t care about all those Apple rules. Rules that violate the DMA are void. Nevertheless the EU will invesrigate, again and Apple will change, again …
Pretty sure I still would be. My phone doesn't sink with the company that made it.
You know, assuming Apple isn't petty enough to brick all their products on their way out.
Apple isn’t going to give developers free access to the apps store; especially not the big ones making a lot of money from the store. The will make adjustments until teh EU says OK; and Spotify and EPIC will whine it is malicious until Apple lets them use the store for free, which isn’t going to happen.
Completely different market history. The Mac came up in the era of boxed software distribution; app store only distribution was simply not possible. I have no doubt Steve would have done that if he could; given his obsession with contreolling the Mac experience.
The consumer isn’t going to benefit even if Apple drops all its fees becasue developers will just pocket teh different and Spotify et. al. aren’t going to say “Apple dropped teh Apple tx so we’ll cut the price of our subscriptions 30% to compensate since we never got that revenue anyway.”
This battle is in no way about benefiting the consumer; nor the small developer for that matter.
Last edited:
It’s simple - keep the current deal; give Apple 15% and let them handle all the tax, hosting, etc. so you can focusd on developing.
Oh no, a lot, in the US at least, depends on the judge or jsutice; tehre are plenty of “plain text” jurist who belive what was written is what counts, not intent.
You clearly are not a graduate of the Internet College of Law.
Apple lawyers probably did. But the European Parliament was fully prepared for that.
The DMA has an entire Article 13 dedicated to anti-circumvention or "malicious compliance."
This article grants the commission extremely broad powers to prevent gatekeepers seeking to avoid their obligations via "malicious compliance." Clearly it was anticipated that at least a few of the gatekeepers would seek to undermine and circumvent the act.
Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex
I guess Amazon should charge their customers 30% of all the internet services running on their AWS? Or Internet Providers should charge 30% on all of their traffic because it is build on top of their platform?
Well gaming consoles have alternative marketplaces. They are called Walmart, Best Buy, GameStop etc.
Nowhere is the store required to be provided for free, only things done outside the store.
Lucky us the.
So… how is it not in the consumers benefit of the developer they buy the goods from keeps as much money as possible?
If developers can increase their profits by 30% and make even better goods, how is this bad?
And if Apple keeps 30% of is this good for the consumers? How is it good for the consumer if the developers makes 30% less profits?
Isn’t this what Apple did in the beginning with the AppStore that allowed developers to keep more profits? So more should be better right?