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
Not if I buy it second hand!
I’m not trying to diddle Apple out of funds, just point out hope ridiculous their iOS protection racket is compared to their oldest platform
I have a digital ps5 - no alternate App Store - I have to use the PlayStation store.
But I knew that’d be the case when I bought it, so I’m not whining for the government to fix it for me. If I wanted access to alternatives I would have purchased a different device.
Until an app you have to use for work decides to leave the App Store - then you won’t have a choice.
Nice and simple would be Apple allowing devs to provide the best possible UX in their app. If an external link to sign up (even if not just for a better price) is that, it should be allowed like it USED TO BE.Well, this iS what the regulators asked for. Meanwhile in the rest of the world, niiiiice and simple.
That’s worse for users. Nothing to prevent developers from pulling an adobe and making it impossible to cancel your monthly subscription without a huge early termination fee, or worse, have an app steal your debit/credit card info (intentionally or just due to poor security), or have a scam app install a backdoor through a malicious link. Even in the best case scenario, you have to create a new account, give all your info, etc.
There are serious advantages to having everything run through Apple. Easy cancelation, easy billing, trust, family sharing, etc. Too many on here assume everyone is a power user who knows what they’re doing buying apps and subscriptions. Most users don’t.
Apple just wants to make more money, there is nothing wrong about it. Devs have the freedom to say NO since the beginning.
Which is why Apple should allow side-loading on the Mac and give developers and users a choice. Develpers can go completely alone without using Apple’s tools, signing, etc. Apple can use a similar sandboxing to allow users to chose what access to give such apps.
If they want to be on the App Store, pay Apple a fee for access to Apple’s cusutmer user base, just like happens in any store.
It’s not a matter of luck but a different way a market develped.
as a consumer, who gets what is irrelevant if the price is the same. What does the consumer benefit if EPIC gets 30% and users pay teh same for a subscription?
Your assuming that will happen. Did developers make better goods when Apple cut the commission to 15%. Do we get better goods because Apple only charges 15% on subs after the first year?
Developrs already set a price point knowing what Apple’s fee is. Maybe Apple should just let developers set a price Apple pays on each sale and let Apple decide what the markup will be.
The consumer just sees an end price, unless that changes there is no tangible benefit to them.
How does a developer benefit from having to be on multiple stores, track revenue, ensure taxes are paid, deal with varius return policies, etc.? If Apple allows sideloading, having to find ways to fight pircay and risk upsetting paying customers? Move to subscriptions to combat the revenue loss? Are alt stores going to host apps for 100 Euros a year like Apple does? Is it to a developer’s benefit if alt stores decide to chareg them to be on the store?
There’s more to this, IMHO, than who gets what cut.
How so? Fee cuts for big developers could significantly reduce the App Store’s profitability; likely to result in more fee structure changes to recoup those losses.
I doubt small developers will get a better deal than the 15% Apple now takes, and fee changes are likely to hit them disproportionally.
This fight is about the few major revenue generators wanting access to Apple’s customer base without paying Appl;e for it.
Either way it will be interesting to see how this plays out; I’m guessing it will be a while until the court fights, if any, end.
The Eu literally didn’t do anything for me. I’m using the App Store the same way as I always have lol.because I don’t have any issues with it and I don’t support Eu interference to try and benefit these corporations while lying and saying it’s for the customers. Because it isn’t.
But anything to knock apple you guys love to see for some strange reason. It’s odd to me
You’re conflating consumer-friendly with developer (and niche consumer)-friendly. Most of what Apple does is consumer-friendly to their main customer base. That’s why their brand is so loved by them.
Yes, an identical PS5 with a drive that gives you access to the competitive marketplace of game sales through retailers other than Sony.
Where can I buy an iPhone that does the same?
Too many Apple taxes but people blame government for taxing the corporations! They charge developers for doing nothing! Keeping the play store safe, technology etc…all are already charged on fixed basis when Developers sing-in to the Developer program. When developers make loss, will Apple share their losses as well? This is pure greed!
Exactly, In iOS developers do not have option other than using App Store for App distribution! If they allow free downloads from Web Sites like Windows Phone App, Android APK etc…Apple can charge premium for utilising their App Store.
It is often perceived as fortunate that Apple does not exert more control than it already does. The reduction in business costs is not merely an assumption; it's a strategic move. Consumers stand to benefit either through enhanced products, due to increased reinvestment, or through lower prices. Apple's retention of fees, whether 0% or 30%, does not inherently improve their service since they act as an intermediary.
The real advantage lies in the consumer's ability to directly support developers with their purchases. Many argue that Apple does not merit a larger share of their money, especially given the substantial profits they reap from the App Store, without providing additional value.
The decision to sell in multiple stores should rest with the developers, not Apple. If developers see benefits in multi-store sales, they should encounter minimal barriers in doing so.
The App Store is not the sole platform that manages revenue tracking, tax compliance, return policies, and anti-piracy measures. Apple's steep fees and intricate regulations tend to promote a subscription model. In contrast, platforms like Steam require only compliance with their Terms of Service and a one-time fee of $100 to publish a game.
Indeed, there's more to this. Remember how software programs used to cost hundreds of dollars and were scarce before the advent of the App Store or Steam? These platforms reduced the cost of deploying software to consumers. Following the same logic, if Apple were to lower their fees and remove barriers to entry, we as consumers would benefit even more.
Consider Steam or GOG, for example. They offer significant advantages to both consumers and businesses.
If Apple wishes to recoup costs, they are free to do so, provided that developers have the option to bypass this by publishing their games on Steam instead, allowing iOS users to purchase and download their games from there.
small developers can absolutely get a better deal. just taking Steam or Epic shows they are lightyears better than apple ever was.
This viewpoint is inherently flawed. We are not the property of Apple; we are its patrons. As on MacOS, we should have the autonomy on iOS to make purchases without Apple serving as an intermediary. If Apple truly provided value for both consumers and developers, they would opt to continue using the App Store. However, if it fails to do so, we may see a shift towards more competitive marketplaces, akin to how Steam surpassed the Mac App Store with its superior service and rules.
Developers ought to have the ability to create their games and programs and sell them to iPhone/iPad/Mac users without Apple earning a penny, or they can choose to utilize Apple's services and pay the commission.
oh trust me, the decision is coming this year...
The EU commision have alreadt stated a deadline as well as a preliminary opinion on the legal matter
Should cab drivers pay car manufacturers commissions every time they sell transportation services?
Is it reasonable for Airlines to earn a fee from hotels and restaurants for every customer they fly to a holiday destination?
Perhaps mobile network operators could get a percentage of all the shopping you do online?
After all, without them, the customer would not exist.
An iOS desktop is an intriguing idea! Offered at a reasonable price (say $399) Apple could market it as a games console as much as a computer. The iPad Pro is an incredibly capable device.
Correct me if I am wrong, but even if I buy a game via a disc from a game shop, Sony still gets a cut from the developer, right? There really is no way for the developer to effectively keep 100% of game revenue while cutting Sony out as the middleman.
So using this logic, isn’t Apple similarly entitled to a cut of app revenue from apps sold outside of the App Store as well?
I don't think this is ambiguous at all. Only an Apple lawyer could (try to) argue otherwise.Hooray for intentionally vague wording that could easily be interpreted either way.