Apple Starts Letting Developers Add Alternative App Marketplaces to App Store Connect

[djphat2000]

Frankly I don't see much that changes here.

The ability exists, when it did not before.

I'm not a developer but the reports I've seen indicate that Apple's revenue stream doesn't take much of a hit at all given the non negotiable "download" fees which can rack up to huge amounts for popular apps.

That was never the point of the law. It wasn't stated (as far as I know) that Apple can't make any money from apps sold outside the store. Just that it required them to allow access from 3rd party stores or "side loading". Some other company can now compete with Apple's store on the platform. Not that it prevents Apple from accessing fees or payments in doing so. If it did prevent them from doing so. That would have been a lot of work for nothing on Apple's part. And they would not have made the rules the way they did. This looks to be well thought out to minimize any possible small developer or fly by night company/person from creating an app and having it available on their site. Or via a store they create. While maybe or maybe not complying with any real safety standards for the end user.

It seems that Apple still fully controls the "certification" process ... the only thing different is that you can go to "alternative marketplaces" (whatever that means) to get apps.

Yes, you still have to certify the app. But, if someone like Microsoft makes a store. They will have to pay Apple for the price of the download past 1 million and past 1 million of apps downloaded. .50 Euros. This will also prevent (possibly) free apps from being distributed. Unless they institute a subscription plan. Say $4.99 a year or equivalent euro's. So end users can download whatever they want and that will cover the cost per download. And still allow free apps to exist on the new store. I've suggested that maybe a Microsoft or Amazon would include it in their current subscriptions of Prime and or Xbox Live/Office 365 etc. End user gets safe(ER) applications at the end of the day.

Maybe someone can clarify what truly changes for Apple and the public and does it really remove the "walled garden"

It allows the creation of 3rd party stores that most likely will be trusted. Not just the store but the apps within.
Everyone has skin in the game to produce a good product. And if the app is only available on the 3rd party store (which could happen). Then the end user can trust it to be OK to get.

The real question is.... Just like for Windows and Mac applications, can an individual, single developer create an app and post it on their own web page for download and install (free or for sale) without going thru any other site? If not this "change" seems to be a sham and I'm surprised the EU agreed to this "solution"

Most likely not from what I see. Again, they created the law (EU). Apple had the leader of the EU over for a meeting. I'm sure this was fully discussed. If there was going to be any outrage over it. Then it should have happened already. Unless the EU is just that slow (very possible). In any event, my personal idea for how Apple should handle this was far exceeded by what they actually did do. There is no access around the firewall. The access is still granted by Apple. And the potential stores that do pop up are not going to waste their time with crap apps or potential malware/virus riddled programs.

 

[breenmask]

Do you really think the majority of users will look for new apps outside the official App Store?

Especially if Apple is not promoting, endorsing it, or making the process all that straight forward.

do you really think big apps aren't going to leave the official App Store?

hint: epic risked it with fortnite.

 

[Samplasion]

The only will be if an app you want to use doesn’t appear in the store you want to use.

As opposed to such an app not existing for iOS altogether... I see that as a win

 

[Samplasion]

do you really think big apps aren't going to leave the official App Store?

hint: epic risked it with fortnite.

To my knowledge it hasn't happened on Android, except for Fortnite which is the outlier

 

[kkee]

Well you said it yourself, the Apple app store is filled with crap. Now you or anyone else could open and host your own app store with carefully curated quality content. Over time you build a reputation for only hosting the best and become the go-to for all good things. That's the point.

and the true cost of developing, distributing and supporting apps will become real 🥹☺️

 

[Shirasaki]

We don't want more options. We want simplicity. Simplicity means limited options.

Burner phone is there for you. Ultimate simplicity. Embracing what phone does the best: making phone calls.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

From what I could tell from the EU law. They never stated Apple wasn't allowed to collect fees or any other payments on the platform, even from outside the AppStore.

Very true.

I think the law is concerned with how computing gatekeepers can leverage their status to condition the market to their own benefit at a loss of their users.

In my opinion it's quite clear that the new policies to allow apps outside the App Store, were put by Apple to give its App Store significant commercial advantages over any other form of digital distribution of apps pursued by users for their iOS devices. This might be considered, Gatekeeper abuse in line with the concerns of DMA.

Given these conditions, would you put your app for free anywhere else but the App Store? What you gonna do, after say million installs/updates move to the Apple App Store? It makes no financial sense to put it anywhere else.

Would you build something in the business model of say Apple Arcade, pay X and eat as much as you can? Of course not. On the get go, is not cost effective for anyone else but Apple given the cost imposed for installation of an app.

I would say that by distributing apps and installs free of cost within the its App Store, Apple already established inherent costs of technology required to do so. It's difficult to argue that outside of the App Store than it needs to cost something.

There are many ways Apple can be payed for the use of its SDKs and IDEs. As there are many ways to sell their app notarization / certification services and provide their seal of approval. All well known industry practices.

 

[Abazigal]

Given these conditions, would you put app for free anywhere else but the App Store? Of course not, on the get go is not cost effective anywhere else. What you gonna do, after say million installs/updates change to the Apple App Store?

Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see whether the EU accepts Apple's proposal or not.

That's the problem with the DMA in a nutshell. It's implied that the EU wants Apple to do X, but in a bid to sound neutral, didn't explicitly say that Apple couldn't do Y, and so Apple did precisely that, and everyone here loses their collective heads.

Like you all couldn't see this coming?

In my opinion it's quite clear that the new policies to tribute apps outside the App Store, were put by Apple to give its App Store significant economical advantages over any other form of digital distribution of apps. This might be considered, Gatekeeper abuse in line with the concerns of DMA.

I don't disagree that computing platforms are essential infrastructure. I can accept that it is in society's interests to ensure that innovation can continue to take place. I can support well-crafted legislation but it needs to be honest. First and foremost, the EU needs to come out and say "Yes, we are most definitely violating Apple's property rights here, but there's going to be a FRAND-type structure. We are measuring this tradeoff as a society, Apple is still going to get compensated at the end of the day, and they probably should still continue to invest in the platform because Apple is still making a ton of money and it's good for their ecosystem as a whole."

But the whole problem is that the EU can't even craft a law like this properly unless they are being totally honest about what they are doing (and they most certainly have not been entirely honest, as evidenced by how the DMA targets only US tech companies and excludes companies like Spotify). In this regard, I am happy to see Apple push back against the EU and the DMA, because it's at least pushing everybody towards real clarity about what is being asked of them exactly.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see whether the EU accepts Apple's proposal or not.

Yes. The EU will of course see what I mention and weight in a lot of other factors that might mitigate it. Will see.

Like you all couldn't see this coming?

Of course I was seeing a paint job coming ... but there is always hope. What I see is that this kind of maneuvers exposes Apple gatekeeping behavior even more to some, while it might work also to play the victim in some other circles.

Now on being honest around property right violations. There are none being violated. For some people any kind of regulation over property is akin to violating property rights. But the fact is, if you want say to build a house there are now regulations to follow when probably 100 years ago there were none. I bet when they started regulated the same kind of stance you pose was usual. What is happening today is more a sign of maturity of the digital landscape than anything else.

The idea that there is some kind of targeting against American companies, just shows how dystopian is sometimes the world of Apple. I've been in other forums centered on other companies such as Microsoft and Google reading what people say about DMA and only read this kind of nonsense here.

 

[djphat2000]

Very true.

I think the law is concerned with how computing gatekeepers can leverage their status to condition the market to their own benefit at a loss of their users.

That assumes Apple was leveraging anything to begin with. We have to remember, these rules (30% and 1 store, no side loading) was put in place when there was no way to know if Apple's idea about the iPhone was going to work. It's a safe bet to assume Apple came up with these rules to be profitable to them, if it works. And not too onerous to developers. While also providing a relatively easy, and inexpensive way for those developers that don't have deep pockets. To get a foothold and get their apps out to people. Again, if it works. Which yes it did, but that's the risk taken.

In my opinion it's quite clear that the new policies to allow apps outside the App Store, were put by Apple to give its App Store significant commercial advantages over any other form of digital distribution of apps pursued by users for their iOS devices. This might be considered, Gatekeeper abuse in line with the concerns of DMA.

Then the EU will have to admit that they are more concerned about the "price" of entry than having entry in the first place. I don't think (just like the US) they can set prices. They would be unable to enforce a price limit or any price for what Apple could and or should charge. They provided a means of entry for 3rd party stores and apps. They are able to be compensated for doing so. The price could work for larger companies like I stated before. But, it is limiting for a reason.

Given these conditions, would you put your app for free anywhere else but the App Store? What you gonna do, after say million installs/updates move to the Apple App Store? It makes no financial sense to put it anywhere else.

This is correct. However, I would challenge you on this point. How many apps really get that many downloads? A million isn't a small amount by any means. I'd personally like to see the download rate of say Angry birds or something like that. I'm sure something like Candy Crush could get that many and more. But, they have IAP's. So it's "workable" in that regard for them to make their money back on the download fee. They just need to be sure of what they earn from those IAP's to cover the costs of the .50 after 1 million downloads. But, to be honest most free apps today most likely don't get that many downloads anyway. They maybe fine. And if they go viral and go over that amount. That maybe a good problem to have no? Worse case, they could just charge 1 euro for the app. And the problem goes away. Maybe they make a better app by getting paid too?

Would you build something in the business model of say Apple Arcade, pay X and eat as much as you can? Of course not. On the get go, is not cost effective for anyone else but Apple given the cost imposed for installation of an app.

Again, .50 per download sounds like a lot. I think it's just easier to assume a developer will start charging 1 euro for an app they make. Or whomever is hosting it on their store. It can be covered by a subscription of 4.99 Euros a year or something. This is workable. I get your point that it's not as competitive to Apples App Store. So why would you "leave it" to another store. If the other store is offering you less expensive means of delivery compared to Apple. Say a 10% cut and 3% credit card transaction fees. Or no transaction fees if you have a reputable one you already use. Then maybe it's not a bad idea. We will have to see if any one of the big players makes move to create a store.

I would say that by distributing apps and installs free of cost within the its App Store, Apple already established inherent costs of technology required to do so. It's difficult to argue that outside of the App Store than it needs to cost something.

It seems the rules at least grant to Apple that it is their IP and technology. Their platform. So they should be able to collect fees and payments that enable that to continue. Even outside of Apple's store. Removing them from collecting anything and fully allowing 3rd party access to rodeo clown all over the ecosystem. Didn't seem like something the EU wanted either. Since they can't set prices. The could only hope Apple would bend the knee. And from what it seems like, that's not happening to the extent some wanted.

There are many ways Apple can be payed for the use of its SDKs and IDEs. As there are many ways to sell their app notarization / certification services and provide their seal of approval. All well known industry practices.

All of which will come at greater costs to those that least can afford to keep up with that. While larger companies can deal with it without blinking an eye. Go back to the start of the AppStore when no one complained about the 30% if you sold something on the store. Verses those that could give away apps and never pay Apple much more than the cost of a Mac computer and $99 a year. How would you balance the two groups so that it's not unfair to one and overly generous to the other? Apple would have to charge a lot more for those SDK/IDE's.

 

[Abazigal]

Now on being honest around property right violations. There are none being violated. For some people any kind of regulation over property is akin to violating property rights. But the fact is, if you want say to build a house there are now regulations to follow when probably 100 years ago there were none. I bet when they started regulated the same kind of stance you pose was usual. What is happening today is more a sign of maturity of the digital landscape than anything else.

I will put it this way.

You can’t realistically expect to tell Apple that they are to (effectively) stop charging developers 30% overnight and expect them to just accept it. Right now, it's not even apparent what Apple needs to do exactly in order to comply with the DMA. If it were crystal clear, then we wouldn't have had to debate over this for the last 2 years. This is why I say the DMA is not a good piece of legislation, because the people in charge of it cannot even be honest and upfront about why they are implementing it.

Many people here seem to think that it involves Apple allowing sideloading with no strings attached and that every developer will be able to host apps on their own website and work around Apple's 30% cut. They rub their hands gleefully at the thought of Apple's App Store profits cratering, like it's karma for some slight or injustice that was done against them.

And if you allow Apple to come to their own interpretation on how to best go about adhering to the DMA, is it then any surprise that they are going about it in a manner that, while complying with the letter of the DMA, completely misses the spirit of the rules? The idea that Apple is going to roll over and give up on steering their own platform in a manner they feel best represents their interests, is frankly naive.

I personally think that nothing much will change for EU users or developers, precisely because the DMA seems to say a lot, yet is suspiciously light on details on what Apple is supposed to do precisely. I initially thought that Apple would only allow sideloading but not third party app stores (there was that "or" clause which I bickered with another forum member who claimed he knew better), that Apple would make the process as onerous as possible, that they would continue to charge 27%, and side loaded apps may be disadvantaged in some ways like not being able to access certain system level privileges like iCloud or Apple Pay.

While I was wrong in just about every detail, (but in my defence, I don't have an entire legal team advising me), I will say that I was right about perhaps the one most important thing - that Apple is only going to give up App Store revenue kicking-and-screaming, and everything they do will revolve around preserving this source of revenue as much as possible.

Because at the end of the day, Apple’s intellectual property is their property, and Apple is not wrong in believing that they are entitled to charge whatever fee they like in exchange for access to their property (which brings me back to my initial point that any attempt to make Apple give this up will not go down easy). That they will jump through whatever hoops are necessary to collect said fee should not be a source of surprise or dismay to anyone at this point.

The sooner people accept that, the less shock there will be when decisions like this are made. Like I said, I want to see Apple push back against the DMA and force the EU to say out loud what it is that they should have admitted right from the start.

 

[mrochester]

As opposed to such an app not existing for iOS altogether... I see that as a win

I don’t have any apps I want that don’t exist.

 

[wanha]

do you really think big apps aren't going to leave the official App Store?

hint: epic risked it with fortnite.

Epic left the app store in an attempt to use Apple's platforms and access to Apple's customers for FREE.

You know, as in paying 0.0% instead of 30%.

Apple won't allow it, nor should they.

Just because one company tried it and thus far failed miserably costing the company billions in lost revenue doesn't mean others will be dumb enough to follow suit.

Would other companies like to pay 0% commission to access Apple's customers? Sure, but that's extremely unlikely to happen.

 

[Samplasion]

I don’t have any apps I want that don’t exist.

Problem solved, then.

 

[mrochester]

Problem solved, then.

So you can see how it introduces a problem for most people. But I’m not surprised that people are just thinking about themselves only.

 

[Samplasion]

So you can see how it introduces a problem for most people. But I’m not surprised that people are just thinking about themselves only.

You're missing the point. Very probably, the only kind of apps found on alt stores is going to be apps that Apple doesn't allow. Apps which don't exist today. But you said there are no apps that don't exist that you want. So, by your logic, you won't be affected by alt stores existing.

Though, I don't get why your desire to have anything in a single alt store should trump my need to access apps Apple doesn't allow.

 

[mrochester]

You're missing the point. Very probably, the only kind of apps found on alt stores is going to be apps that Apple doesn't allow. Apps which don't exist today. But you said there are no apps that don't exist that you want. So, by your logic, you won't be affected by alt stores existing.

Though, I don't get why your desire to have anything in a single alt store should trump my need to access apps Apple doesn't allow.

Great, as long as you can provide assurance that every app I want will remain in the store I want to shop in then all is fine 😊

My need should trump yours because you are the one who is trying to change how something works that’ll potentially affect everyone, even people who don’t want the change, after they have purchased the product. Therefore the burden falls on you to ensure that existing product owners won’t be negatively impacted.

 

[Abazigal]

You're missing the point. Very probably, the only kind of apps found on alt stores is going to be apps that Apple doesn't allow. Apps which don't exist today. But you said there are no apps that don't exist that you want. So, by your logic, you won't be affected by alt stores existing.

Though, I don't get why your desire to have anything in a single alt store should trump my need to access apps Apple doesn't allow.

I get his point.

Right now, there are 2 possible scenarios.

1) John gets his app from the App Store. It continues to stay in the App Store. Status quo.

2) John gets his app from the App Store. It migrates to a third party App Store. Depending on the reasons for the shift, John could be worse off. He needs to manage updates between two app stores. Certain features like subscription tracking and ATT may no longer work.

3) There could also be other ramifications we simply aren’t aware of yet. Either for better or for worse.

So it’s not entirely accurate to claim that there is zero impact to existing users because the truth is - we really won’t know. And I wish that is one thing you all could be more forthcoming about. Just be upfront and say that yes, there may be drawbacks, but it will be a net benefit for me, and the rest of you are going to have to learn to adapt and deal with it.

It sounds selfish, but at least it’s honest.

Nobody is saying that anyone’s wants trumps anyone else’s here. I am not afraid to admit that I would rather the App Store remain closed for my own desires because I want the convenience of having everyone in one App Store.

Just be honest. That’s all we ask. And not pretend that everything will be all unicorns and rainbows.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That's the problem with the DMA in a nutshell. It's implied that the EU wants Apple to do X, but in a bid to sound neutral, didn't explicitly say that Apple couldn't do Y, and so Apple did precisely that, and everyone here loses their collective heads.

There is no problem. The law (correctly) acknowledges that core platform services are technologically complex and evolving - anticipates that implementing measures in the form of further decisions may be needed.

as evidenced by how the DMA targets only US tech companies and excludes companies like Spotify

There's a functioning market for music streaming services already - and Spotify's market position is contestable. As evidence by, among others, Apple's "Music" service.

First and foremost, the EU needs to come out and say "Yes, we are most definitely violating Apple's property rights here, but there's going to be a FRAND-type structure. We are measuring this tradeoff as a society, Apple is still going to get compensated at the end of the day

They did just that, including in the recitals prefacing the act.

 

[mrochester]

There is no problem. The law (correctly) acknowledges that core platform services are technologically complex and evolving - anticipates that implementing measures in the form of further decisions may be needed.


There's a functioning market for music streaming services already - and Spotify's market position is contestable. As evidence by, among others, Apple's "Music" service.

They did just that, including in the recitals prefacing the act.

Apple’s position in the market is also contestable but no company ever even tries.

Its always baffled me that we see a company like Apple making best in class products that people love and that makes Apple huge sums of money, and no other company ever tries to follow their lead. The competition really is just ****. Apple needs better competitors.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple’s position in the market is also contestable but no company ever even tries.

Theoretically - but it isn't in practice. Just as Microsoft and their Windows and Office products aren't in the market for desktop computing software for businesses. They've become a de facto standard and developers have converged on the platform.

No third-party means no viable operating system platform to sell - and vice versa. Classic network effects in force.
Windows Phone/Windows Mobile was a victim of that in mobile operating systems.

 

[mrochester]

Theoretically - but it isn't in practice. Just as Microsoft and their Windows and Office products aren't in the market for desktop computing software for businesses. They've become a de facto standard and developers have converged on the platform.

No third-party means no viable operating system platform to sell - and vice versa. Classic network effects in force.

That’s the fault of developers and Apple’s competitors though. Not Apple’s fault or consumers fault.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s the fault of developers and Apple’s competitors though. Not Apple’s fault or consumers fault.

It's nobody's fault - it's just market forces at play.

It's not the fault of potential competitors of Apple either. Developing a competing operating system to Android/iOS isn't commercially feasible.

 

[mrochester]

It's nobody's fault - it's just market forces at play.

It's not the fault of potential competitors of Apple either. Developing a competing operating system to Android/iOS isn't commercially feasible.

lets create the market conditions so that it is feasible then.

 

[Abazigal]

lets create the market conditions so that it is feasible then.

To have your own ecosystem, you must first be willing to invest in building up your own ecosystem. The world laughed as Apple introduced their own music streaming service, their own video streaming service, their own news app, their own fitness service, their own games platform, heck, even their own credit card. This is on top of maintaining their own maps service, their own digital assistant, even their own messaging app.

How many of them are laughing now? One of the things I think most people don't realise about the features that Apple rolls out year after year is that they are not just for their utility in that product, but are actually doubling as proving grounds for future products (eg: stage manager being the foundational UI for the vision pro). So in hindsight, those services weren't just "me too" attempts by Apple to also hop on the bandwagon of whatever was hot back then or Apple playing catch-up. Apple has always marched to their own beat.

Now that's long term vision and planning, and I feel it's one of Apple's strong suits that they don't really get proper credit for.

Nobody else seems to be willing to (make that investment), which is why it is easier to just lobby governments to poke holes in the Apple ecosystem for them to get a free ride off on. I don't blame them for trying, but I don't see the need to ignore that elephant in the room either. That Apple is where it is today because it took the risk and spent all that time and effort and resources into building up their own ecosystem during a time when skepticism and cynicism towards their efforts could not have been greater.

is it so hard to give credit to Apple where proper credit is due?