Apple Reinstates Epic Games EU Developer Account, Paving the Way for Alternative App Store

[GroovyCatticus]

Demonstrably wrong, if you you look at Epic, Microsoft, Paddle, Fastspring or others.

Are you trying to make an argument there - or just bashing the European Union?

Oh, my bad, I should have said “every other *relevant* software distribution service” 😉

If you think pointing out truth = bashing, then that’s on you 😂

 

[GroovyCatticus]

As someone formerly in the EU, we had an amazing software and hardware industry. This was sold to the Chinese and Americans by the Dutch. And we sold our IP to Japan.

This was done under the gaze of the EU which were strangely missing from the debate.

Yes, that’s quite a shame.

Just think how much more exciting the tech industry would be if the EU were actually competing instead of just making rules 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[Rogifan]

I want reassurances that iPhones will remain secure by default with the App Store the only permitted app distributor and notoriser.

Has Apple said that every iOS user is now less secure because some iOS users in the EU can download and use alternate app stores? My understanding is there are rules around these stores so not just anybody can create one or be in one. It’s quite pathetic how Apple scares everyone. I see people saying they won’t use anything but IAP. Um, do you never buy anything over a web browser? When you buy in a physical store do you only pay with cash? Also, any app that isn’t selling digital goods doesn’t use IAP. Is that not secure? Should Apple not be allowing that?

In the press release Apple put out about Spotify they were very clear that they think Spotify’s success is in part due to Apple and very bitter that Spotify isn’t paying them anything (of course it was Apple’s decision to allow content consumption apps that don’t offer IAP). That’s what this is about, not privacy or security. So long as Apple believes they’re responsible for the success of every developer (and thus deserve a cut of the developers success) and they own the customer/customer relationship these spats will continue.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s quite pathetic how Apple scares everyone. I see people saying they won’t use anything but IAP. Um, do you never buy anything over a web browser? When you buy in a physical store do you only pay with cash? Also, any app that isn’t selling digital goods doesn’t use IAP. Is that not secure? Should Apple not be allowing that?

Well said

I also find the Apple scare tactics to be a pretty low brow effort on Apples part

Like you said - it's about money, not privacy or security

 

[bcortens]

No, in a modern society your “quality of life” will be multiple orders of magnitude worse without electricity than without an iPhone. To the point your existence would depend on it. Sure, if you are willing to live like Ted kascinzky it wouldn’t matter.

I can do all that on my computer.

There are other ways.

But to your point 2fa is not a quality of life as electricity is. Don’t make 2fa a basis for quality of life. It’s a fake argument.

Your definition of lifestyle device is so broad that it encompasses everything, your attempts to redefine it introduced no hard edges that can be used to exclude smartphones but include electricity And other vital services (like telecommunications).


The simpler fact is that the smartphone is the most important electronic device to most people on which the majority of people do most of their computing. Your use case doesn’t matter, whether or not other devices can be used to replace the smartphone does not matter. In modern society the most important electronic tool is the smartphone. This is why it is being regulated, because it is the most important tool to most people on which a huge amount of business is conducted.

Quibbling about just how essential it is to modern life is just that, quibbling.

Attempting to define it as just a lifestyle device and of no interest to regulators is to ignore or deny it’s place in modern life.

 

[Beautyspin]

Serious question - how, in your thinking, does a fee equate to a condition for an alt store? I admit I have not studied the text of the law as so many here have so if it does state that any platform fees are not allowed please point me to the text.

Being allowed to still secure the platform is allowed and that requires resources. Apple may enforce app signing on all deployed applications, for example. And, iOS is still proprietary platform and may require usage fees separate from App Store fees. The mechanism to date has been using the App Store to calculate the fees but I imagine that was more for simplicity’s sake than because it was a fee specific to the storefront.

Would it be permissible (or better in your thinking) for Apple to have a two-tiered platform license - distribute via App Store @ $99USD / year + fees vs distribute via alternate mechanisms @ $10,000,000 / year with no other fees?

Margrethe Vestager's interview with Bloomberg will clarify it. Just around 2 minutes she clearly states that Apple cannot put in place a fee structure that makes it difficult for alt appstores to come up.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Margrethe Vestager's interview with Bloomberg will clarify it. Just around 2 minutes she clearly states that Apple cannot put in place a fee structure that makes it difficult for alt appstores to come up.

I LOVE THIS!
Thank you for posting this

 

[Beautyspin]

I think that something like the CTF could be legal if Apple hadn't exempted their own store and if they charged for it worldwide. If Apps chose to remain exclusive to the App Store and not accept the new terms they aren't subject to the CTF and as such this seems like it is straight anti-competitive right from the get go. I think that if Apple had to make the CTF universal they would also have to lower it from 0.50/device/year to something more reasonable because 0.50 is just not going to scale well.

Since they don't actually seem to care to charge a platform access fee under the old terms or in the rest of the world (even for the largest companies on the platform) it severely undermines their argument that the CTF is required for iOS development.

Vestager's interview clearly states that Gatekeepers cannot put in place a fee structure that hampers setting up alt Appstore. Currently, that is DMAs highest priority. She also states the methodology that the DMA will use to address the inadequacies in the proposals.

 

[Beautyspin]

The DMA explicitly states that a gatekeeper can have conditions on alternative application stores.

Whether Apple's core platform fee is a violation isn't entire clear to me. The DMA doesn't seem to explicitly forbid it.

Can you point to which parts of the DMA regulation you believe forbids such fees?

Please check around 2 minutes into the video of Vestager's interview to Bloomberg.

 

[surferfb]

What a bunch of clowns. “Let’s make a regulation without enough guidance on what is and isn’t allowed and then we’ll decide after the fact whether or not you complied to our unclear guidance”.

 

[threesixty360]

Apple enabled it. Originally in app purchases weren’t allowed at all: apps were either free or they weren’t. A paid app was paid from the start or not at all. When Steve jobs announced in app purchases they also came with a clear rule: they can only exist in apps that were paid to start with: free apps couldn’t have them. Apple changed later this rule causing the flooding of the market with low quality free to download crap designed just to get you hooked and push you to buy in apps to win.

But wasn’t that in response to apps that were already abusing the free app model? I think it was apples attempt to control the situation more. But that model was brought in by the games companies, not Apple.

 

[threesixty360]

Apple could use their power as the gatekeeper to ban these types of transactions... they don't, it's in Apple's power to improve this market but they choose not to.

But if they banned it games companies would be saying Apple is curtailing their freedom to offer their customers what they want. Isn’t that where we are now with epic and Spotify? Apple really didn’t push for this model, it was already there.

 

[Xanix]

The DMA explicitly states that a gatekeeper can have conditions on alternative application stores.

Whether Apple's core platform fee is a violation isn't entire clear to me. The DMA doesn't seem to explicitly forbid it.

Can you point to which parts of the DMA regulation you believe forbids such fees?

Please check around 2 minutes into the video of Vestager's interview to Bloomberg.

What a great Lady; both as humanist and politician. Madam Margrethe, I love you; in a platonic way, of course.
The EU's determination to support the Ukraine has been noticed too. Kind regards.

Thank you @Beautyspin

 

[surferfb]

Please check around 2 minutes into the video of Vestager's interview to Bloomberg.

What a great Lady; both as humanist and politician. Madam Margrethe, I love you (in a platonic way, of course). The EU's determination to support the Ukraine has been noticed too. Kind regards.

Then they should have written that in the regulation. They didn’t. So it’ll get litigated.

 

[treacher]

Yeah, Apple had no idea they were complying maliciously and bitterly!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Then they should have written that in the regulation. They didn’t. So it’ll get litigated.

You know they can just "change the regulation" if need be, right?

The EU & Apple are entities not on the same level in this situation

 

[threesixty360]

Actually that is incorrect.

Microtransactions come from the TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY!!!

Everyone else just modeled after that.

Here’s a phone…. Oh and a charge for each and every thing you want to do with it under various circumstances…. Each one unique to region and participant.

Once upon-a-time Apple championed eliminating micro transactions by selling hardware once and offering free OS upgrades that included the means to communicate without text (SMS) micro-transactions or phone call micro-transactions (via FaceTime video and audio).

They also tried to give away as much content as possible and heavily pressured the music industry to never charge more than 99 cents per song or the video entertainment industry to never charge more than 1.99 per episode in iTunes.

You know who was a champion of all this? Steve Jobs.

You know who WASN’T entirely aligned with that vision? Tim Cook.

Apple is a different company now.

While it was fun while it lasted Apple has begun to take on many aspects of the very entities that Jobs would vilify and frankly everyone is less for it.

Now Apple has grown to the point that it too needs to be regulated rather than coddled.

Unity Blog

Check out the latest Unity news, product announcements, content, creator success stories, and more

www.is.com

Mobile game developers quickly realized consumers’ unwillingness to pay for apps. Even a $0.99 price significantly impacted an app’s demand. In 2009, Apple enabled in-app purchases for free apps, adding a new monetization route for F2P games.

It was actually Berthseda with their elder scrolls game that started micro transactions in 2006….

Microtransactions in gaming keep players paying - UCentral Media

CJ Craig Contributing Writer Chances are, anyone who has played any type of video game recently has run into something called a “microtransaction.” These are small purchases players can make inside of the game that allow them to get special items like character skins, extra in-game currency, or...

ucentralmedia.com

Then EA did it with FIFA in 2009.

As I said in my earlier post. The big games consoles started to realise how much money there was in this model and pushed on Apple to allow for micro transactions. I think they were probably in their games already but were paid for outside the AppStore. Obviously Apple wants their cut so needed to make micro transactions an official way to pay

The games companies started this mess.

 

[Xanix]

Then they should have written that in the regulation. They didn’t. So it’ll get litigated.

That is not mine; I tried to quote Beautyspin post. Cheers.

Beautyspin: Please check around 2 minutes into the video of Vestager's interview to Bloomberg.​

 

[turbineseaplane]

As an American, I get jealous when I hear European politicians speak

 

[surferfb]

You know they can just "change the regulation", right?

The EU & Apple are entities not on the same level in this situation

Yes. I work in the (US) government space, so well aware how regulations work. But until the EU updates the regulation, which is not a quick process, the fact of the matter is the DMA doesn’t ban gatekeepers from charging for their services. Google is imposing the same core user fee Apple is. So it’ll get litigated.

 

[I7guy]

Your definition of lifestyle device is so broad that it encompasses everything, your attempts to redefine it introduced no hard edges that can be used to exclude smartphones but include electricity And other vital services (like telecommunications).


The simpler fact is that the smartphone is the most important electronic device to most people on which the majority of people do most of their computing. Your use case doesn’t matter, whether or not other devices can be used to replace the smartphone does not matter. In modern society the most important electronic tool is the smartphone. This is why it is being regulated, because it is the most important tool to most people on which a huge amount of business is conducted.

Quibbling about just how essential it is to modern life is just that, quibbling.

Attempting to define it as just a lifestyle device and of no interest to regulators is to ignore or deny it’s place in modern life.

And again. If you were to go without your smartphone and only had a flip phone you could make your life work. People do. Much different than electricity.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

You know they can just "change the regulation" if need be, right?

The EU & Apple are entities not on the same level in this situation

Yep — one actually “does the work” and the other collects “fines” to line their pockets and writes “rules” to benefit whining billionaires selling V-Bucks.

Glad you support the ones doing the real hard work 😂

 

[10anta]

Has Apple said that every iOS user is now less secure because some iOS users in the EU can download and use alternate app stores? My understanding is there are rules around these stores so not just anybody can create one or be in one. It’s quite pathetic how Apple scares everyone. I see people saying they won’t use anything but IAP. Um, do you never buy anything over a web browser? When you buy in a physical store do you only pay with cash? Also, any app that isn’t selling digital goods doesn’t use IAP. Is that not secure? Should Apple not be allowing that?

In the press release Apple put out about Spotify they were very clear that they think Spotify’s success is in part due to Apple and very bitter that Spotify isn’t paying them anything (of course it was Apple’s decision to allow content consumption apps that don’t offer IAP). That’s what this is about, not privacy or security. So long as Apple believes they’re responsible for the success of every developer (and thus deserve a cut of the developers success) and they own the customer/customer relationship these spats will continue.

Depends where this ends.

Controlled app stores that are quality assured, and only notarised apps running, is for me preferable to a Wild West where malware and bad actors could be rife.

 

[jz0309]

And again. If you were to go without your smartphone and only had a flip phone you could make your life work. People do. Much different than electricity.

It makes me wonder how I did it back in the 80s/90s visiting countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, China and so on without having internet nor a mobile phone…

 

[turbineseaplane]

Controlled app stores that are quality assured

Nobody is really even doing that now

Apple mainly checks to make sure their financial terms aren't being violated by an App

A marketplace of App stores WOULD however open up the "quality" component as a key differentiator to compete on.

I'm positive that parents of the world would love to see App stores competing to create the most curated and "child safe/enjoyable" App ecosystem

This is why Apple is fighting all this so hard
They want you locked in -- they don't want to be competing.

Competing takes energy and resources -- and they might not "win" like they do now (offer no choice, so people take what they get from Apple)