Apple Loosens App Store External Linking Rules and Changes Fee Structure in European Union

[jakey rolling]

im continually confused how consoles dodge this requirement...

I don't know. I can see why legislation aimed at general computing hardware sold at very high profit margins and potentially used for mission-critical purposes would have to be different from legislation aimed at consumer gaming devices. To me it's pretty easy to see how consoles dodge this requirement if you're not, you know, completely ignoring context or market realities.

Consoles are essentially mid-range gaming computers sold for the price of a potato. They are not and have never been marketed as general purpose computers. There are exactly zero businesses that run mission critical software on Playstations, Xboxes or Nintendos. The entire console market relies on software revenue to subsidize hardware costs in order to make consoles affordable to consumers. If this requirement were applied to consoles the same way as it is applied to mobile computing devices, the price of a console would have to triple in order for the platform to even exist.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I am well aware of how Steam operates.

Let me repeat my point.

Right now, as stated, the DMA does not expressly prohibit Apple from charging developers who choose to sell their apps via third party app stores or via sideloading. I know there are provisions as cited above, but let's say that Apple is determined to collect something, what then is an acceptable, non-zero rate that everyone here can get on board with?

Well Apple is allowed to collect a fee for any service that is voluntary used.

The issue we run in to is the free apps Apple hosts for no cost at all. If people download a eSIM app and install a subscription when they travel abroad or just for extra GB, they don’t pay apple a single cent.

If Apple claims they are getting payed for IP then it must be in a FRAND agreement and explicit.

It's apparent that everyone here would rather Apple just ape Android and freely allow sideloading and third party app stores and not collect a cent (and maybe that's what the EU is trying to steer Apple towards as well), but Apple clearly has a different opinion on this issue. The EU commission may well say that this is against the spirt of the DMA, but to me at least, it is not against the letter.

People want Apple to copy the MacOS style of software deployment and the limited ability of Apple to take a fee.

The letter of the law is irrelevant. Hence teleological reading is required. The English language is very vague in some terms compared to Swedish, German or French etc.

The DMA is written in 27 languages that are all equally valid in the eyes of the court.

If the EU doesn't want Apple to charge these fees, then perhaps they should change the DMA to disallow fees being charged, though that would probably open up another can of worms about how the EU is trying to nationalise US companies and compel them into offering their services for free.

It doesn’t prohibit legitimate fees, the issue is Apple is discriminating on the basis of how and why fees are levied, and it’s completely arbitrary.

While they also forces everyone to use their core platform services, when the requirements is to be outside the CPS

 

[Sophisticatednut]

im continually confused how consoles dodge this requirement...

Easy, they aren’t relevant in the market or having any market power of relevance to nether regulators, lawmakers or consumers.

They are already covered by other laws.

 

[webkit]

Until an app you have to use for work decides to leave the App Store - then you won’t have a choice.

Why would developers want to leave what would almost certainly continue to be the most popular place for users to get iOS apps? What's more likely to happen is developers would keep their apps in the app store AND offer them elsewhere.

 

[surferfb]

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?

If it's that important to you, you can buy a perfectly good Smartphone that does that from Samsung, Google, or a whole host of other companies. You're not entitled to an iPhone that operates the way you want just because. You knew what you were buying when you bought it.

I'm not familiar with Sony's arrangement with developers. Does Sony not still get a percentage of revenue from games sold on physical media, or do they only take a cut on games sold through the PS Store?

Yep, they absolutely get a licensing fee for sales of physical games sold in stores. I've seen estimates of around 15%. I believe after the store's cut and manufacturing costs, the publisher usually ends up with less money with a physical copy and 15% cut than they do for a digital copy with a 30% cut.

 

[surferfb]

The annual developer fee, and the insanely high mark-ups that they earn on selling hardware would be acceptable. Anything above that is charging for a service that Apple does not actually provide.

Again, it is clear here that the vocal EU defenders on here want Apple to give up its intellectual property for free, or close to it, because "they make enough money" selling hardware. Apple is entitled to nothing from developers for developing iOS, creating the APIs they use, maintaining the OS, fixing bugs, developing the features that developers use. Apple should do that for free because they make enough money selling hardware.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Again, it is clear here that the vocal EU defenders on here want Apple to give up its intellectual property for free, or close to it, because "they make enough money" selling hardware. Apple is entitled to nothing from developers for developing iOS, creating the APIs they use, maintaining the OS, fixing bugs, developing the features that developers use. Apple should do that for free because they make enough money selling hardware.

Please provide evidence for this intellectual property that is given away for free?

Show that it’s not already paid for by ether the user when purchasing the device or developers when paying for the developer membership fee.

So far it’s only claimed without proof.

Why isn’t cydia sued for using Apple IP without compensation?

 

[MilaM]

Again, it is clear here that the vocal EU defenders on here want Apple to give up its intellectual property for free, or close to it, because "they make enough money" selling hardware. Apple is entitled to nothing from developers for developing iOS, creating the APIs they use, maintaining the OS, fixing bugs, developing the features that developers use. Apple should do that for free because they make enough money selling hardware.

Because they are not charging based on IP. If they would, then every app would have to pay.

To be blunt, they pulled the fees out of their nose. The only reason they can charge them, is because they have completely locked down the OS so that only apps distributed through the app store work.

 

[surferfb]

Because they are not charging based on IP, if they would, then every app would have to pay.

Every app THAT CHARGES A FEE OR HAS A SUBSCRIPTION FOR DIGITAL GOODS has to pay. Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "if an app is free, it doesn't have to pay IP licensing costs." To give another example, just because a lawyer occasionally provides pro bono services, that doesn't mean they're not allowed to charge other clients for the same services.

Please provide evidence for this intellectual property that is given away for free?

Show that it’s not already paid for by ether the user when purchasing the device or developers when paying for the developer membership fee.

So far it’s only claimed without proof.

Why isn’t cydia sued for using Apple IP without compensation?

Who runs Cydia anymore? Even at its height it probably wasn't worth the money to go after it, and probably like 47 people jailbreak their phones in 2024.

Please provide evidence that the Developer Agreement includes a license to Apple's IP for paid or subscription apps. You can't, because it doesn't. In fact, it's VERY clear in the development agreement that if your app has a subscription or cost money, additional payment is required.

Edit to ask:
In your opinion, is Apple is entitled to any compensation for developing iOS, creating the APIs they use, maintaining the OS, fixing bugs, developing the features that developers use, etc. outside of what they make in selling the phone and/or the annual developer fee?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Every app THAT CHARGES A FEE OR HAS A SUBSCRIPTION FOR DIGITAL GOODS has to pay. Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "if an app is free, it doesn't have to pay IP licensing costs." To give another example, just because a lawyer occasionally provides pro bono services, that doesn't mean they're not allowed to charge other clients for the same services.

Wrong, I can purchase digital goods in the steam AppStore, and any eSIM/SIM service and pay 0%

And no, Apple isn’t within its right to say an app that used some of their IP can use it for free, and if the same app is then provided outside the store must then pay a fee.

Or have an app that pays one fee with in app purchases while it being outside the store then it suddenly must pay an extra fee.

when a company have an entrenched market position then it can’t discriminate willynily
Competition Law:

• Abuse of Dominance: Under EU competition law, a company that holds a dominant market position cannot engage in practices that constitute an abuse of that dominance. This could include discriminatory practices like offering different terms to similar customers or refusing to deal with certain companies without legitimate reasons.
• Selective Distribution: In certain industries, companies may choose to enter into exclusive or selective distribution agreements. While this is generally legal, it must be done within the bounds of competition law and should not unjustly restrict competition or lead to anti-competitive practices.

Who runs Cydia anymore? Even at its height it probably wasn't worth the money to go after it, and probably like 47 people jailbreak their phones in 2024.

First million does it and you don’t have the option to ignore someone who openly violates your intellectual property rights and makes money off it and keep the rights.

Please provide evidence that the Developer Agreement includes a license to Apple's IP for paid or subscription apps. You can't, because it doesn't. In fact, it's VERY clear in the development agreement that if your app has a subscription or cost money, additional payment is required.

Can you specify what IP we are talking about? You claim developers aren’t paying for the ”IP” without actually referencing to anything concrete.

What if I don’t sign the developer agreement? Can I legally sell my app through appDB or cydia or other random store without paying Apple anything?

 

[jlc1978]

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.

So any store that acts as an intermediary does not deserve to charge for their services? A third party store will charge developers as well. Steam gets 30%, is that unreasonable?

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.

I agree Apple should allow side loading and let developers decide. You want Apple's benefits of signing, etc., use the App Store. If you want to take on more upfront costs or just want to avoid Apple, go it alone.

If I were an iOS developer, sideloading would concern me. It has the potential to make piracy easier for the casual user. A smart programmer may find ways to mode multiplayer games to gain an advantage as well. Sideloading will change things for developers beyond offering more ways to sell. Personally, I'm for sideloading, especially on the iPad, since it might offer a VM that could run Windows 11 reasonably well. Developers will just be collateral damage in order to achieve that goal.

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.

Plus 30% commision. Why should the as an intermediary get a cut if Apple shouldn't?

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.

Sure, and drove down the expected price to nearly zero for many apps. Apple already lowered fees for small developers. How would further reductions benefit the consumer? History has shown lower fees do not mean lower prices.

Consider Steam or GOG, for example. They offer significant advantages to both consumers and businesses.

How does Steam benefit a developer beyond what Apple offers? They charge more to small developers than Apple, and demand $100 per game upfront that I not refundable until you hit a sales threshold. Apple charges an annual fee by contrast.

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.

How is Steams 30% light years better than Apples? Or Epic's demanding revenue if you use their software different than Apple? Maybe Apple should simply charge for using development tools much like Epic and just demand a cut of revenue. Would that be better?

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.

Sure. I agree allow sideloading and see if developers can get a better deal and adjust accordingly.

However, Apple does own the access point to a large customer base, which has value to developers, just as a large chain store has a customer base that is valuable to companies seeking to sell goods as well.

Apple may actually wind up being able to charge more depending on how it all plays out.

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.

Sure. Just don't use any of Apple's tools. Apple could up the developer account price for access to Apple's tools and refund it after x amount of sales, much like Steam does.

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

Will be interesting. I doubt it will be the last word.

 

[MilaM]

Please provide evidence that the Developer Agreement includes a license to Apple's IP for paid or subscription apps. You can't, because it doesn't. In fact, it's VERY clear in the development agreement that if your app has a subscription or cost money, additional payment is required.

I skimmed the iOS TOS in my language. I could not find any clause that prohibits me from running third party software on it.

You can technically create a program for iOS without using Xcode and link to Apple's libraries. It would be legal as far as I know (IANAL). Of course the largely artificial obstacles to run this (unsigned) software on my iPhone still exist.

 

[jakey rolling]

Again, it is clear here that the vocal EU defenders on here want Apple to give up its intellectual property for free, or close to it, because "they make enough money" selling hardware. Apple is entitled to nothing from developers for developing iOS, creating the APIs they use, maintaining the OS, fixing bugs, developing the features that developers use. Apple should do that for free because they make enough money selling hardware.

On the contrary, it is clear that vocal Apple defenders here want developers to give up their intellectual property to Apple for free. I can't speak for the EU or others, but I have no problem with Apple charging for access to development tools or the API, just as I have no problem with IBM or Microsoft charging for those things. The problem is tying access to those tools and that API to other, completely unrelated services, such as the App store.

Aside from this, all of the things that you just listed out that Apple does are the same things every operating system developer in the history of operating system development does. Why do they do that? Because operating systems are useless without software. You and many others on here seem to have become caught so deep in the Apple reality distortion field that you have convinced yourselves that Apple providing development tools and APIs is somehow new or unique.

 

[jakey rolling]

Every app THAT CHARGES A FEE OR HAS A SUBSCRIPTION FOR DIGITAL GOODS has to pay. Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "if an app is free, it doesn't have to pay IP licensing costs." To give another example, just because a lawyer occasionally provides pro bono services, that doesn't mean they're not allowed to charge other clients for the same services.

There are literally thousands of lawyers in any given major city competing for clients' business. We're not talking about rules applied to thousands of participants in a properly competitive marketplace. We're talking about rules applied to one dominant player in a market where there is exactly two dominant players.

In your opinion, is Apple is entitled to any compensation for developing iOS, creating the APIs they use, maintaining the OS, fixing bugs, developing the features that developers use, etc. outside of what they make in selling the phone and/or the annual developer fee?

Sure. They are entitled to charge for the development environment or other tools to develop for that API. They are even entitled to charge their direct customers for upgrades and bug fixes and new versions of the OS. Or they can bury the cost of those things into the cost of hardware like they do now.

 

[surferfb]

Aside from this, all of the things that you just listed out that Apple does are the same things every operating system developer in the history of operating system development does. Why do they do that? Because operating systems are useless without software. You and many others on here seem to have become caught so deep in the Apple reality distortion field that you have convinced yourselves that Apple providing development tools and APIs is somehow new or unique.

And Operating Systems used to cost hundreds of dollars to properly compensate the OS developers for all of that work and maintenance and support. Apple decided to move that cost from end-users to developers. And now the EU is trying to make Apple give that away for free, despite Apple only having ~25% of the market in the EU (i.e. not a dominant player - influential yes, dominant, no).

 

[jakey rolling]

So any store that acts as an intermediary does not deserve to charge for their services? A third party store will charge developers as well. Steam gets 30%, is that unreasonable?

Developers are not forced to use Steam to distribute their software. If developers were not forced to distribute software on Apple's store, then Apple's 30% charge would be perfectly reasonable. The EU law has very little to do with what Apple is charging for the legitimate services that they are providing. It has very much to do with Apple tying developers to those services in the first place.

 

[MilaM]

And Operating Systems used to cost hundreds of dollars to properly compensate the OS developers for all of that work and maintenance and support. Apple decided to move that cost from end-users to developers. And now the EU is trying to make Apple give that away for free, despite Apple only having ~25% of the market in the EU.

I'm old enough, that I used to pay for major OS X upgrades. If I remember correctly, the cost was something between 30 and 50 Euros. Of course major upgrades were less frequent back then. I would have no problem paying again for major versions if that means that Apple abandons the whole App Store racket.

 

[jakey rolling]

And Operating Systems used to cost hundreds of dollars to properly compensate the OS developers for all of that work and maintenance and support. Apple decided to move that cost from end-users to developers.

No they didn't. They decided to bury that cost in with the cost of their hardware. This is no different than the Windows or MacOS world.

And now the EU is trying to make Apple give that away for free, despite Apple only having ~25% of the market in the EU (i.e. not a dominant player - influential yes, dominant, no).

No, no they are not. They are telling Apple they cannot bundle access to developer tools with the requirement that developers use an unrelated service. They are not in any way forcing Apple to give away anything.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So any store that acts as an intermediary does not deserve to charge for their services? A third party store will charge developers as well. Steam gets 30%, is that unreasonable?

Steam can charge 30% because the same developer can take the exact same game and publish with GoG or windows store and have the exact same customer base.

The issue with Apples is that they are the only intermediary and have an entrenched market position.

I agree Apple should allow side loading and let developers decide. You want Apple's benefits of signing, etc., use the App Store. If you want to take on more upfront costs or just want to avoid Apple, go it alone.

Exactly, competition between the best services available.

If I were an iOS developer, sideloading would concern me. It has the potential to make piracy easier for the casual user. A smart programmer may find ways to mode multiplayer games to gain an advantage as well. Sideloading will change things for developers beyond offering more ways to sell. Personally, I'm for sideloading, especially on the iPad, since it might offer a VM that could run Windows 11 reasonably well. Developers will just be collateral damage in order to achieve that goal.

Trust me, iOS games is one of the easiest to pirate. The AppStore isn’t doing anything about that, except a feeling of security.

The one thing holding VM behind is JIT compilation( it’s practically dead in the water without it because of performance issues)

Plus 30% commision. Why should the as an intermediary get a cut if Apple shouldn't?

They are chosen as the intermediary. Why should Apple get a cut from steam sales on Mac? I don’t see why it shouldn’t be the same on iOS. Otherwise why doesn’t network providers get to take a 30% cut for any sales on the AppStore? Without them it wouldn’t be possible to download the content.

Sure, and drove down the expected price to nearly zero for many apps. Apple already lowered fees for small developers. How would further reductions benefit the consumer? History has shown lower fees do not mean lower prices.

Not necessarily, but a more profitable app equals better quality content. Apple have largely pushed for the freemium model and subscription services to be more common.

There millions of apps that can’t afford to be on the AppStore as they are just passion projects and the only reason they aren’t available is because of the 99€ yearly fee.

Just how plugiks For safari is largely a wasteland compared to Firefox(way smaller market than safari) or chrome

How does Steam benefit a developer beyond what Apple offers? They charge more to small developers than Apple, and demand $100 per game upfront that I not refundable until you hit a sales threshold. Apple charges an annual fee by contrast.


How is Steams 30% light years better than Apples? Or Epic's demanding revenue if you use their software different than Apple? Maybe Apple should simply charge for using development tools much like Epic and just demand a cut of revenue. Would that be better?

Well it would be a long list of things that steam does for developers or provides for them that Apple simply doesn’t or can’t.
The easiest way would be if you just ether browse the steam storefront on your computer or download the steam app on iOS and browse the store and just compare the layout and what consumer and developer interaction is allowed between the iOS AppStore and Mac appstore

But to have a short list:

1. Individual software/game forums for customer support
2. Community guides
3. Community discussions
4. Integrate reviews showing you how many found it helpful, if this person have made multiple reviews before and how many hours they have played the game before reviewing it.
5. Integrated mods support
6. Allows community modding to be supported if the developers want it.
7. Easy bundling and discount if you own a DLC if a game already
8. Multiplayer servers with anti cheat functionality
9. Allow selling of keys on third party servers at zero cost
10. Cross platform ownership.
11. Allows you to install older version of a game.
12. Usable search with detailed filter for easy navigation.

Sure. I agree allow sideloading and see if developers can get a better deal and adjust accordingly.

However, Apple does own the access point to a large customer base, which has value to developers, just as a large chain store has a customer base that is valuable to companies seeking to sell goods as well.

Apple may actually wind up being able to charge more depending on how it all plays out.

Indeed but the issue is that Apple owns the only access point. Aka they are the gatekeeper’s between iOS users and iOS developers.

Sure. Just don't use any of Apple's tools. Apple could up the developer account price for access to Apple's tools and refund it after x amount of sales, much like Steam does.

They could, but just like with Epic games, there’s no inherent need to use apples tools, it’s only the case because apple requires them to be used.

Will be interesting. I doubt it will be the last word.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

And Operating Systems used to cost hundreds of dollars to properly compensate the OS developers for all of that work and maintenance and support. Apple decided to move that cost from end-users to developers. And now the EU is trying to make Apple give that away for free, despite Apple only having ~25% of the market in the EU (i.e. not a dominant player - influential yes, dominant, no).

Completely unrelated, but anyone else remember paying the $10 or whatever for iOS 3? Things were weird back then

 

[webkit]

If it's that important to you, you can buy a perfectly good Smartphone that does that from Samsung, Google, or a whole host of other companies.

I suppose similar could be said to Apple. If restricting alternative app stores, browser engines, payment systems, etc. is that important to you then you can sell your products in North America, South America, Australia, Asia, etc.

No, I am not suggesting Apple pull out of the EU.

And Operating Systems used to cost hundreds of dollars to properly compensate the OS developers for all of that work and maintenance and support.

"Hundreds of dollars" was not the norm. Most operating systems have been sold as part of a device e.g., Windows with a Dell or HP computer, iOS with an iPhone, macOS with a Mac, etc. The cost for a Windows OEM license was typically far less than $100, even less than $50.

 

[jlc1978]

Developers are not forced to use Steam to distribute their software. If developers were not forced to distribute software on Apple's store, then Apple's 30% charge would be perfectly reasonable. The EU law has very little to do with what Apple is charging for the legitimate services that they are providing. It has very much to do with Apple tying developers to those services in the first place.

Which is why I think Apple should allow sideloading, build in user selectable security options, and change some of the fees to better deal with allowing apps to direct payment to external sources and by pass Apple. For subscription or IAP apps, charge a hosting and d/l fee, which could be based on the sub/IAP price; or go a revenue % like Epic does.

Apple has a lot of data on sales volume, d/l volume, etc. they can use to come up with a pricing model that will meet EU muster and keep the impact, if any, small on App Store revenue and keep the overall impact on small developers to a minimum.

If an app developer wants to forgo any of Apple's products or services, go for it.

I really think we are closer in our POVs than our posts may seem to indicate.

Personally, I think Apple and the EU need to sit down, negotiate what constitutes compliance and move forward instead of playing this silly game of whack a mole and "I don't know what compliance really is but I will when I see it," o paraphrase Potter Stewart. Once an agreement is made, Apple must abide by it and the EU can't keep coming back and say "Wait wait wait, what we really meant was..." If Spotify and Epic don't like what was agreed, that's their problem.

Trust me, iOS games is one of the easiest to pirate. The AppStore isn’t doing anything about that, except a feeling of security.

I'd love to see some recent data, most of what I find is old; and points to Android going to IAP/Subs to combat piracy vs Apple's price model. If it were a major issue now I suspect a lot more would be said.

Jailbreaking in it's heyday was easy if you had some tech skill but from what I've seen Apple has basically killed it; and in my experience a jailbroken phone could have issues running some apps such as Winterboard. Testflight and developer tools allow you to do it, but don't they require you to periodically do some stuff to keep them working?
Sure, you can sign in with someone's AppleID and download a game, but most peopel aren't going to share that info with random strangers.

Sideloading has the potential to return piracy to a broader audience if it makes it easy to just drag and drop an IPA onto the machine like in the jailbreak days. Which is to my point, the changes may ultimately redefine the way apps are sold in ways that hurt developers and consumers; and why I say there may be unexpected collateral damage.

The one thing holding VM behind is JIT compilation( it’s practically dead in the water without it because of performance issues)

Which is why I'd like sideloading to be able to bypass Apple's restrictions on the iPad.

There millions of apps that can’t afford to be on the AppStore as they are just passion projects and the only reason they aren’t available is because of the 99€ yearly fee.

If they can't afford 99€/year, will they be able to afford 8.25€/month in hosting and d/l fees? I seriously doubt the 99€ fee I a big impediment, considering what it costs for a computer, internet, etc.

"Hundreds of dollars" was not the norm. Most operating systems have been sold as part of a device e.g., Windows with a Dell or HP computer, iOS with an iPhone, macOS with a Mac, etc. The cost for a Windows OEM license was typically far less than $100, even less than $50.

You're conflating the cost to an OEM vs an end user. Windows was over $100 as a boxed product, OS/2 was nearly $200. Apple was pretty unique in the ][ era and early Mac with free updates as the software developed, then had a period where they charged such as Snow Leopard for $29 before going back to the old model. Windows has since moved to more of a free upgrade model.

Completely unrelated, but anyone else remember paying the $10 or whatever for iOS 3? Things were weird back then

IIRC, there were some weird GAAP rules for amortization if a product added features so Apple charged a nominal fee to avoid having to restate past finacial results based on a software update.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Which is why I think Apple should allow sideloading, build in user selectable security options, and change some of the fees to better deal with allowing apps to direct payment to external sources and by pass Apple. For subscription or IAP apps, charge a hosting and d/l fee, which could be based on the sub/IAP price; or go a revenue % like Epic does.

Apple has a lot of data on sales volume, d/l volume, etc. they can use to come up with a pricing model that will meet EU muster and keep the impact, if any, small on App Store revenue and keep the overall impact on small developers to a minimum.

If an app developer wants to forgo any of Apple's products or services, go for it.

I really think we are closer in our POVs than our posts may seem to indicate.

Personally, I think Apple and the EU need to sit down, negotiate what constitutes compliance and move forward instead of playing this silly game of whack a mole and "I don't know what compliance really is but I will when I see it," o paraphrase Potter Stewart. Once an agreement is made, Apple must abide by it and the EU can't keep coming back and say "Wait wait wait, what we really meant was..." If Spotify and Epic don't like what was agreed, that's their problem.

Well the issue here is that’s not how EU law works. They don’t have such powers to make special deals with Apple, as this is me that applies to all gatekeepers. This law is very much outcome based and most of the things can be tested and measured by objective criteria if it’s complicit or not.

I'd love to see some recent data, most of what I find is old; and points to Android going to IAP/Subs to combat piracy vs Apple's price model. If it were a major issue now I suspect a lot more would be said.

Jailbreaking in it's heyday was easy if you had some tech skill but from what I've seen Apple has basically killed it; and in my experience a jailbroken phone could have issues running some apps such as Winterboard. Testflight and developer tools allow you to do it, but don't they require you to periodically do some stuff to keep them working?

And well I’m just using my own personal experience, and the act of pirating is easier today than in the jailbreaking hay days, as now you don’t need to jailbreak your device to pirate apps, but just have the right certificate to sign the app to trick Apple to thinking it’s legitimate

Sure, you can sign in with someone's AppleID and download a game, but most peopel aren't going to share that info with random strangers.

Sideloading has the potential to return piracy to a broader audience if it makes it easy to just drag and drop an IPA onto the machine like in the jailbreak days. Which is to my point, the changes may ultimately redefine the way apps are sold in ways that hurt developers and consumers; and why I say there may be unexpected collateral damage.

Well if Apple actually implemented some proper DRM for developers or software verification. Apple could allow the Secure Enclave to be used for a secure verification of authentication of apps. But that API isn’t for anyone but Apple.

If they can't afford 99€/year, will they be able to afford 8.25€/month in hosting and d/l fees? I seriously doubt the 99€ fee I a big impediment, considering what it costs for a computer, internet, etc.

GitHub is free, and running your own small website to host an app for iOS, android, windows, Mac, Firefox, Edge, safari etc etc for 10~$ a year is cheaper than multiple independent store fronts with potential fees they aren’t recouping.

 

[jlc1978]

Well the issue here is that’s not how EU law works. They don’t have such powers to make special deals with Apple, as this is me that applies to all gatekeepers. This law is very much outcome based and most of the things can be tested and measured by objective criteria if it’s complicit or not.

I find it har to believe the EU can't si down and review a proposal and identify what passes muster and what doesn't so a company has some certainty it is compliant. Any similarly situated company would have he ability to do the same thing so it isn't a special deal but rather adding some certainty to the process. If the outcome turns out to be bad some things may change but then it's not a fiable offense since the company is making good faith efforts to comply.

I am not sure how objective outcomes will be determined.

What if store custs don't go down or developers pay more in the end for alt stores? Is that Apple's fault?
What if most developers chose to stick with Apple and alt stores don't gain traction? Is that Apple's fault?
If Epic doesn't lower its price after getting away from Apple's "tax" is that a failure of the DMA?

Objective criteria are hard to find.

And well I’m just using my own personal experience, and the act of pirating is easier today than in the jailbreaking hay days, as now you don’t need to jailbreak your device to pirate apps, but just have the right certificate to sign the app to trick Apple to thinking it’s legitimate

Yea, you can pay 299/year for an enterprise certificate or 99 for a developer one with some limitations, but that kinda cuts into the financial gain; or get an app from some who is using it to violate Apple's agreement.

My point is sideloading enables the loading of signed and unsigned apps it could have a negative effect on developers if more piracy results.

IMHO, the low prices for many games and apps may actually drive piracy if it becomes easy to just load an IPA without playing certificate games; .i.e. "the app only cost a few Euros so my pirating it isn't costing the developer much" could very well be teh rational people used. Of course, there will always be the old standby f since I would not have bough it it isn't wrong to pirate it since the developer wasn't getting my money anyway.

Well if Apple actually implemented some proper DRM for developers or software verification. Apple could allow the Secure Enclave to be used for a secure verification of authentication of apps. But that API isn’t for anyone but Apple.

I think they should, or some variant, and then charge for its use if a developer wanted it.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Every app THAT CHARGES A FEE OR HAS A SUBSCRIPTION FOR DIGITAL GOODS has to pay.

Um nope.

Why Amazon got out of the Apple App Store tax, and why other developers won’t

It’s leverage. The reason is leverage.

www.theverge.com