Yes why not.. Content creators are the reason apple can sell their products
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 Working on Solution for EU Core Technology Fee Possibly Bankrupting Apps That Go Unexpectedly Viral
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They clearly have an intention to let developers use the platform for free - when it suits them (and/or developers have some negotiating power (Uber or transit ticketing apps withdrawing from the platform).
They clearly have no intention to let developers conduct transactions for free when they’re competing with them (Spotify, Netflix, Epic).
Even if they are charging a fee for the app apple should not charge app creators. its absolutely insane. imagine if movies should pay netflix or musicians should pay spotify or the radio. The creators make the content that sell their phones. I think this is wanting the cake and all the cherry’s Ifnot for those content creators they would sell no smartphones, if no netflix or spotify or youtube etc on iphone i would not buy an iphone.
But Apple says they have a cost in developing iOS, SDKs, tools, etc. So they charge a fee for that.
Knowledge is power. I would look into stuff to acquire some before ranting about things, maybe that’s just me.But that's not how I like it! I want them to do it MY way and I will cry and b!tch until I get what I want (even though I can already get it somewhere else). I'm also the same person that says "FIGHT THE POWER" then ironically sides with the monopolistic power of unelected regulatory bodies to over regulate.
Kind of the point. There are no other stores, and should there be other stores, Apple still what rent.
Honestly. Crazy support of a massive corporate entity, to the detriment of everyone except the entity. I just can’t fathom it. Mental.
Difference is here that in all those cases the bigger company buys rights to use the works. Apple doesn't buy your app. You buy shelve space on their virtual store shelves. Go to any brick and mortar store and ask them what it cost to have them sell any of your products. They are not going to give you money to do so. They sell your products, but they ALWAYS ask a listing fee. Which often comes down to 30-40%.
None of what you just described is difficult, and besides Apples desire to know why I'm using NFC, can all be automated. Besides, whether an app crashes is of zero security impact to a user, and automated virus/malware checks can still be performed during installation of apps from external sources, it's a matter of generating a hash, asking an external server if that hash has been discovered to be malicious, and then asking the user if they still wish to proceed.
That said, there are definitely some benefits to manual app review, which has undoubtedly contributed to why the App Store has better apps than the Play Store does on average. That's all fine, and you'll be free to keep using the App Store, all the EU is requiring here is that users have the OPTION of choosing to step away from that should they want to, or should a player pop up that's even better than Apple at reviewing apps for example.
Which will still be possible with notarised apps, which nobody is taking issue with. The only issue people are taking with regards to it is that it currently requires an Apple account, the process itself is not a problem and does contribute to higher security as Apple can shut down apps (or present a warning at least) "remotely" by revoking the code signature from the notarisation process.
There is another store, you can sell on Android. And even there you still pay rent.
Yes, when it suits them. They are running a business, not a charity. The more successful apps provide enough income to cover the costs of free and pointless apps because it all goes through Apple and they can access it.
Now it’s time for EU to pay the fee.
They are not:
“With just an Apple ID, you can access Xcode, software downloads, documentation, sample code, forums, and Feedback Assistant, as well as test your apps on devices”
They provide the tools for free.
There are countries like Sweden where iOS has a 57.4% market share, no, there is no option, developers need to be able to reach their market, and Apple is currently gatekeeping it.
No problem - as long as it‘s charged evenly and fairly.
And not to steer developers towards Apple‘s old, illegal terms.
1. Apple owns and develops the platform. Therefore should receive the payment.
2. Corporate or not, they are running a business. It’s capitalism. If this was socialism or communism then Apple wouldn’t even exist. And most people would have to work in fields or factories in exchange for food.
You must realise as your writing it that’s it’s a completely different thing, right? It’s a different os, requiring different phones. Do you know that?
1- Dev fee and commission for App Store. Dev fee for using dev tools outside AppStore. Anything else, why should they be paid?
2- you don’t understand either socialism or communism, this is clear. And also besides the point. It’s just market regulation to allow for fair competition. Political ideology has very little to do with it, other than the slight variation in the shades of capitalism between the EU and The US. But, obviously, when you operate in a different region you must play by their rules.
Nobody is saying, that Apple can't charge for theses services. What they can't do, is charging in a way, that is putting competition (i.e. alt stores) at a disadvantage.
Contrary to some (mainly in the U.S.?), Europe does not believe in unrestricted capitalism and/or exploiting monopolies/dominant positions in anticompetitive ways.
Creating and maintaining a fair balance* between platform operators and platform users (including business users) is not socialism or communism.
The issue is the way Apple measure "success" to bill this fee is arguably unfair. From my understanding:
- If you have a free app on the App Store that has 1 million downloads, Apple incurs more costs since they have to host your application but receives zero money in fees since 30% of 0 is still 0.
- If you have a free app on a third-party store that has 1 million downloads, Apple incurs less costs since they don't have to host your application, but for some reason now they require you to pay an exorbitant bill.
This doesn’t make any sense to me because the only way a consumer would be able to use the app would be to completely trust that the developer isn’t going to do anything nefarious/against the consumer‘s interests.
Consumers need an intermediary (union) that has the power to cut off an app developers access to those consumers if the app developer does something underhand/against the consumers interests with the permissions that the consumer has granted that app developer.
No one wants a situation where dangerous/disingenuous apps can’t be stopped/removed.
Yes, there is trust involved, but the user gets to determine who they trust, not the manufacturer. That's actually the core issue here.
Again I re-iterate, any app downloaded from anywhere (whether it's the App Store, an external app marketplace, or an install from Github) will be sandboxed by iOS, and in order to reach through that sandbox to access things like camera roll, calendar, contacts, the local network, health data, Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS location, basically any data about the user or the device, an OS-controlled dialogue must be interacted with by the user, an app can't interact with those, and they also can't just skip asking, the APIs won't return any data if the user hasn't approved access to it.
And they will, via code signing certificates provided by big names like DigiCert, VeriSign, etc., or Apples notarisation process. The App Store isn't the only way to facilitate that.
How on earth would a consumer be able to decide who to trust? You are asking consumers to make decisions in an environment where they do not have the information, time or knowledge to make them. This is completely unrealistic.
Consumers need filtered/curated lists of apps/developers they can safely install from because they cannot make that assessment themselves.
Worked fine for decades on desktop...
But I agree that a curated experience is good, thankfully Apple aren't shutting down the App Store!
Works even better on mobile without the desktop baggage.
I don’t know why the discussion keeps coming back to the way it works on desktop. Are we not permitted to change the way things work? Why can’t we develop something better/different?
Its like saying music streaming shouldn't exist because we already have a working system to purchase music, or that game streaming shouldn't exist because you can already buy games.
Its ok for different models to germinate and exist.
Last edited:
if it is distributed outside of the apple app store, then Apple should have no right to any fees or income.