Apple Working on Solution for EU Core Technology Fee Possibly Bankrupting Apps That Go Unexpectedly Viral

[GroovyCatticus]

Most developers are unlikely to abandon the App Store as for many developers the App Store is a very good deal. The problem is that for other developers it's not and the DMA is supposed to make it possible for them to go third-party without Apple imposing conditions that stifle that.

Apple is currently trying to still keep control through conditions that are problematic, so most developers that would otherwise be interested in going third-party are likely in a "wait and see" approach.

There is zero doubt IMHO the Core Fee will be challenged sooner or later and at that point things might change again.

Can you clarify which developers it’s not a good deal for?

Who is this REALLY benefitting?

How is this unlocking INNOVATION and meaningful COMPETITION in the EU? So a few big companies will make a little more money….that helps EU citizens how again?

As I’ve said before (and will keep saying 😉), this is a whole lot of effort expended for…not much

 

[MilaM]

Still haven’t heard from a single EU dev on this board that plans on signing up for the EU dev agreement 😉

And what does that prove?

 

[GroovyCatticus]

If the EU really wants to COMPETE, you gotta actually be a player, not just a referee 🤷🏻‍♂️

Put on your big boy pants and make something great. Complaining that you can’t compete because Spotify ain’t really gonna cut it. It just looks weak.

EU posters love the rules, but really, you aren’t even in the game!

 

[GroovyCatticus]

And what does that prove?

What do you think it proves?

Probably that you’re right and the EU rules are WORKING GREAT! 😉

 

[needsomecoffee]

If the App Store provides SO MUCH INCREDIBLE SECURITY for iPhone users, then Apple should allow iPhone users to load apps directly from web sites as they do for Mac. Apple has zero role in these transactions and zero liability. The INCREDIBLE SECURITY of the App Store is something Apple can leverage highly through one of their vaunted ad campaigns thereby keeping the vast majority of iPhone users DL'ing thru the App Store. Done right, Apple's value proposition for the App Store will increase, and devs will be happier with the 15/30% cut.

Also the EU will be very happy with this --> no more fines. Additionally in countries like China where the CCP tells Apple what apps to disallow -- protestors can have options and Apple can tell the CCP, "It is out our our control."

Apple's revenues will take a "rounding error" hit. The halo of the App Store will be burnished, and the folks who get scammed will understand that unless one is VERY, VERY careful about loading apps to one's computer or phone from a web site one will regret the decision. Ultimately these folks are going to get scammed anyway so Apple's forced use of the App Store is only delaying the inevitable (although the facade of App Store security may actually increase these odds -- see next para). The "raw" stories about getting scammed will -- again -- reenforce Apple's message about App Store value.

Personally, my experience as I have stated many times is that I am more afraid of loading an app in the App Store after searching for a trademarked app name then I would be if I had DL'ed from https://affinity.serif.com/. Somehow Apple's INCREDIBLE SECURITY FOCUS in the App Store precludes them from showing dozens of scam apps buying ads related to a well known trademarked app -- often with superior placement to the trademark owner's app. So Tim et. al. call me when you fix the App Store so that a search on a well known trademark returns only the apps for that trademark owner.

 

[MilaM]

What do you think it proves?

Probably that you’re right and the EU rules are WORKING GREAT! 😉

We're in round one, and you already want to call a winner. It's a little bit premature, don't you think? We don't even know how the EU Commission is going to react to Apple's first proposal to comply with the DMA.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

We're in round one, and you already want to call a winner. It's a little bit premature, don't you think? We don't even know how the EU Commission is going to react to Apple's first proposal to comply with the DMA.

Referees don’t win games, but they can be on the take to try to fix the outcome.

It seems the EU hasn’t fielded much of a team though, so not sure what these refs think is going to happen here 🤔

 

[Hazmat401]

The only acceptable solution is to completely remove this anti-competitive junk fee.

The hell is wrong with you

Why should the government get paid and not Apple

We should pull out of the EU… I can’t believe our Congress is letting this happen

 

[hans1972]

You seem to fail to understand that this fee is applied to apps that are NOT on the App Store and to developers who chose to NOT use the App Store. So yeah, Apple should NOT charge them any fee, other than the developer fee of $99 per year they already pay and that is meant to cover the cost of using Xcode and the APIs.

I don't want developers outside the App Store to succeed, so things like this is good.

 

[hans1972]

Some here who are against the DMA would tell him:

(1) Tough 💩
(2) No one is forcing him to develop for iOS
(3) If he doesn't like it he can go develop for Android
(4) Apple absolutely deserves (yes, deserves) that $$$
(5) The annual developer fee is not enough
(6) Apple needs to be compensated for the infrastructure that Apple is not paying for

iOS 17.4 SDK introduces new capabilities that let marketplace developers build and distribute marketplace iOS apps as part of an alternative app marketplace in the EU. These apps can install and support software on devices, access data across a catalog of apps, manage users’ purchases and subscriptions, and more. Marketplace apps must meet Notarization requirements, like all iOS apps, and can only be installed from the marketplace developer’s website.


Did I miss anything?

I go for 1, 2 and 3.

This is a good introduction to capitalism.

 

[MilaM]

It seems the EU hasn’t fielded much of a team though, so not sure what these refs think is going to happen here 🤔

The EU is great at exporting its legislation. It's not a very profitable endeavor, but at least we can annoy anf irritate our big neighbor across the big pond a little bit 😁.

 

[djphat2000]

Why should a free app be sold just to pay Apple $$$? I don't get the logic.

Because the law allows Apple to make money even off the platform. So you have that to contend with.
And if you want to make an app as cheap as possible. Then charge .99 euros a year to cover the cost and avoid any issues if your app goes viral.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

Likely because the number isn't really that large and they have been absolutely RAKING at developers expense for all these years

Even more likely is that posters on this board have no clue what *anything* Apple does costs and are just making things up to suit their wild fantasies.

 

[bsolar]

Can you clarify which developers it’s not a good deal for?

The most common examples are developers which offer applications where content delivery is one of the main operating costs. As the content delivery happens on their own infrastructure as opposed to Apple's but Apple requests a fee based on the full price of a subscription, Apple profits disproportionately from the deal.

Other examples are developers which might want to provide apps that are incompatible with Apple's rules, e.g. due to licensing or content type.

In general, I think this is the wrong question anyway. Previously on iOS you had one deal: you either sell your App through Apple or you do not sell your App. "It's a good deal?" was a question very much conditioned by the fact that no other deal was possible.

Now, other deals will become possible, so depending on the kinds of deals that will become available Apple's current deal might become not so good in perspective as it could be compared to competing offers that were simply not on the table previously.

This might force Apple to provide a better deal, or to focus on a particular experience where other vendors might have a different strategy.

Who is this REALLY benefitting?

How is this unlocking INNOVATION and meaningful COMPETITION in the EU? So a few big companies will make a little more money….that helps EU citizens how again?

As I’ve said before (and will keep saying 😉), this is a whole lot of effort expended for…not much

The point of the DMA is to provide alternative opportunities. Who and how will benefit the most from those opportunities is very early to say, but in general more opportunities naturally lead to more competition which naturally leads to more innovation.

Personally I don't think I will dabble much outside of the App Store unless some very compelling reason comes up, but I do believe the DMA is still in my interest as Apple facing more competition is going to push Apple to improve their own offer and innovate even more.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

"Apple does not want to stifle innovation" lmao

Once you put your “a” back on, please let us know what “innovation” Apple has stifled again?

Be specific.

 

[bsolar]

I don't want developers outside the App Store to succeed, so things like this is good.

That's fair, but it should be the free market to decide that on a level playing field, even if said the playing field is provided by Apple.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

The most common examples are developers which offer applications where content delivery is the main operating cost. As the content delivery happens on their own infrastructure as opposed to Apple's but Apple requests a fee based on the full price of a subscription, Apple profits disproportionately from the deal.

Other examples are developers which might want to provide apps that are incompatible with Apple's rules, e.g. due to licensing or content type.

In general, I think this is the wrong question anyway. Previously on iOS you had one deal: you either sell your App through Apple or you do not sell your App. "It's a good deal?" was a question very much conditioned by the fact that no other deal was possible.

Now, other deals will become possible, so depending on the kinds of deals that will become available Apple's current deal might become not so good in perspective as it could be compared to competing offers that were simply not on the table previously.

This might force Apple to provide a better deal, or to focus on a particular experience where other vendors might have a different strategy.



The point of the DMA is to provide alternative opportunities. Who and how will benefit the most from those opportunities is very early to say, but in general more opportunities naturally lead to more competitions which naturally leads to more innovation.

Personally I don't think I will dabble much outside of the App Store unless some very compelling reason comes up, but I do believe the DMA is still in my interest as Apple facing more competition is going to push Apple to improve even more their offer.

So the benefit is nebulous at best. There is a hope that more “opportunities” = competition = innovation.

That new opportunity comes with a lot of negatives that EU backers love to hand wave away as if they don’t exist (very disingenuous).

If someone has a *real* innovation in the app space, does the current App Store really stop them from producing said innovative app?

 

[bsolar]

So the benefit is nebulous at best. There is a hope that more “opportunities” = competition = innovation.

That new opportunity comes with a lot of negatives that EU backers love to hand wave away as if they don’t exist (very disingenuous).

If someone has a *real* innovation in the app space, does the current App Store really stop them from producing said innovative app?

Yes, it is nebulous, but that's the nature of innovation. How do you know what the next innovation will be exactly? Of course you cannot really, otherwise it would not be much of an innovation. What you can do is trying to create the correct conditions to drive innovation and see what happens.

You are correct that the DMA, as with all regulations, has its own negatives, but they were not "hand-waved": there has been an impact assessment and the reasonings that lead to the regulation are documented. This of course does not guarantee that the DMA is going to be a success, or that it will not require to be adapted in the future, but that is also explicitly addressed.

In short: it's far to soon to assess the real impact of the DMA, one way or the other.

 

[cupcakes2000]

The hell is wrong with you

Why should the government get paid and not Apple

We should pull out of the EU… I can’t believe our Congress is letting this happen

‘We’ ?! Wow. How ridiculous.

BTW, Your US congress has nothing whatsoever to do with EU regulations governing now business do business in EU territory. There are different laws, law makers and governments. What you think the US congress has to with it I have no idea.

 

[bsolar]

BTW, Your US congress has nothing whatsoever to do with EU regulations governing now business do business in EU territory. There are different laws, law mackers and governments. What you think the US congress has to with it I have no idea.

To be fair, the EU regulations affect US companies so it is entirely possible for the US government to decide to intervene in the situation in some way.

 

[cupcakes2000]

To be fair, the EU regulations affect US companies so it is entirely possible for the US government to decide to intervene in the situation in some way.

I’m not sure what they could do though, other than diplomatic talks.

 

[macfacts]

The Smartphone Industry would still be in the dark ages w/o iOS. Remember, Android was developed from an Apple developer who left and sold his Java version of similar features to Google which later opened up the Sun Microsystems debacle and then Oracle lawsuits.

Nokia and Blackberry were Kings before and they weren't smartphones. They are more like mini versions of palm pilots and other assistants, including Apple Newton

Nokia had the maemo app store for their smartphones. You could run a web browser with flash support, run YouTube in a browser. Didn't have to pay 30 %.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Well that's good, though I suspect most/all developers would lose their collective minds were Apple to ever implement that plan.

Well that’s up to Apple evaluate the risk reward doing that.

I just want the same rules.

Yes, I don't disagree with that. The developer fee certainly provides access to Apple's resources. But it does not cover Apple's costs of providing those resources, which is why Apple charges a commission on App Store sales and/or the Core Technology Fee.

Well that’s very likely, but unfortunately for Apple they states that that’s the 99$ fee is enough to cover the costs.

I believe Apple have 1.5 million developer accounts so it can very likely pay for itself with 150million revenue a year.

And unless Apple proves otherwise, I take the information at face value.

 

[visualseed]

‘We’ ?! Wow. How ridiculous.

BTW, Your US congress has nothing whatsoever to do with EU regulations governing now business do business in EU territory. There are different laws, law makers and governments. What you think the US congress has to with it I have no idea.

No, but the WTO does. Which means the EU, US and other member nations will have to settle deputes in a way that doesn't violate their WTO treaty commitments. Very early on the EU was warned the DMA could violate WTO/TRIPS which is why they backed off of nullifying IP licensing fees under the enacted version and settled on FRAND terms which 50 eur/cents per annual app install is well within.

 

[BaldiMac]

Well that’s very likely, but unfortunately for Apple they states that that’s the 99$ fee is enough to cover the costs.

What does that mean? Apple certainly never stated that.