That was Apple's intention when it came up with the idea of CTF for apps on the other stores. It wanted the CTF to disincentivize apps from going to the alt stores and thus make them barren. If the EU turned it on Apple, it would serve them right.
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
Didn't you argue that it has "3X the users?". That sounds pretty successful to me.
So those users don't count? You mentioned those "3X users" before as if it were a big deal, now are you trying to argue they don't really matter? Are you trying to argue that a product has to have premium price to count as a success? That affordable products are not successful even if they sell well if more premium products exist?
I think you are simply not being objective and it shows in the way you try to dismiss Android users as like every one of them has either a cheap phone or is engaged in piracy. I hope you do realize there are Android phones just as expensive if not more expensive than the latest iPhone and there are hosts of perfectly normal Android users that are not really different from iPhone users in the way they use their devices.
As expected the European made it abundantly clear that the core fee nonsense is not compliant and Apple, perhaps after some kicking and screaming, or even some hefty fines, eventually will remove it or restrict it to those developers who explicitly ask for notarisation services, that won’t be required to publish iOS apps on alternative stores.
Why? Even if they don't they can still evolve their product, especially if they have to catch-up to competitors that do better or want to distinguish themselves with better performance than the competition.
Furthermore... the point of having a choice is having a choice: if Mozilla doesn't deliver, what is exactly stopping me from keep using good old Safari, or something else that happens to fit my needs better?
Yeah but calm down, you only bought a consumer device... You make it sound like you went to the Million Man March or something.
Are you a developer?
I am, and develop for both iOS and Android.
You have absolutely no clue AT ALL. The platform capabilities, language and development environment make iOS the best place to build an app.
“Nothing to do with Apple” is the most ridiculous thing you’ve said in this thread.
Please stick to topics you actually have experience with, whatever that may be.
Umm, so you don’t have to suffer through bugs and poor power use?
You’re acting like I’m not honestly wishing you luck 🤔
I could care less about “alternative browser engines” besides from an introducing bugs and worse user experience point of view.
Knock yourself out!
So in your mind is inconceivable that a browser engine alternative to WebKit could ever do better?
She was asking for it, eh?That was Apple's intention when it came up with the idea of CTF for apps on the other stores. It wanted the CTF to disincentivize apps from going to the alt stores and thus make them barren. If the EU turned it on Apple, it would serve them right.
We see you.
Where did you get that idea from — are you hearing things?
I said “I could care less” — Safari is working fine, but I’m sure there must be websites out there using features only Chrome supports that will be amazing on the iPhone once Chrome runs with its own engine. Hooray!
Why a dev would support non-standard Chrome only features is for another discussion 😉
Of course they “count” insomuch as they use a phone that happens to run Android, but don’t seem to be part of the app economy (which is what the DMA is about now in regards to Apple).
So sticking to the issue at hand — the app economy and how dominant Apple is.
Why do you think that’s the case? What could it be? How could the closed model be destroying the open Android one so thoroughly?
So many interesting questions!
That's not what you said. What you said is "I could care less about “alternative browser engines” besides from an introducing bugs and worse user experience point of view." (emphasis mine). So you do care, by your own words, at least in part.
So, why would you care about bugs and worse user experience and not about less bugs and better user experience, which are potentially the other face of the medal when using a different browser engine?
Don't you want to use the best option possible at your disposal? Or you would still use Safari even if a better option were available to you?
About Chrome, I don't even care as I don't use it. I don't even know why it popped up in the discussion.
Irrelevant because it makes your argument ridiculous? Sure 😉
Moot because you don’t like it? Uh huh 👍🏼
Look, we all know this is just a power trip for the EU and its backers.
It’s hard to be dominated by US companies so thoroughly — this is your sweet revenge!
We see you quite clearly.
Ummm — I think I need to step away from this line of discussion as the level of pedantry is hitting overload 😳
Enjoy alternative browser engine(s) 😬
Please tell me what Apple has to do with the quality and the success of say, Affinity Publisher?
Or Photoshop?
Or Procreate?
How about Cydia?
I mean, aside the potential use of developer tools, because that has fa to do with how successful an app is. The success of the app is, after all, what I and the original poster I was responding to were talking about.
Yes, I agree those are interesting questions. As example, this browser extension is free on all platforms, desktop or mobile, except for iOS/iPadOS where it costs 5$, even though it has more limited features on those platforms compared to the others.
Who’s ‘we’?
You and Apple?
You and the US?
You and the 3 people that like every post you make?
I’m confused about ‘we’ - are your mates with you in the room when you post?
Not sure if serious - surely somebody whose apps have been downloaded 999,999 times is successful. I presume at that point a developer would decide if their is a labor of love, or if they want to monetise it. Anyway distributing a free
app is not a zero-cost activity for Apple.
Affinity — not on Android
Procreate — not on Android
Photoshop (the real thing) - not on either
Cydia — a pirate iOS store?
So ya, the best apps are in iOS because superior APIs and OS allows those to be built.
Why aren’t they on Android?
Thanks for making my point 😉
And your point? They should charge on other platforms? It should be free on iOS?
They could definitely make it free on iOS if they chose.
Please elaborate on what point you think you’re making 🤔
As usual, you post a bunch of unnecessary pictures that don't support your point and claim that they say things that they don't say. Nowhere is it ever said or implied that the $99 membership fee "covers the costs" of developer resources provided by Apple. Heck, the App Store alone cost billions to run as established in the Epic trial in the US.It means that’s as can be inferred from all their information, the 99$ developer membership fee is all that’s needed to access all the tools and services as clearly listed. If Apple intends something else they should have been more careful how they word things.
View attachment 2360841
Apple states the commission is for sales of goods and services through the AppStore, and nothing else.
View attachment 2360842
What’s Included - Apple Developer Program
The Apple Developer Program provides resources for developing and distributing software for Apple platforms.developer.apple.com
Again, you are purposely misstating what was said in your source. A commission on the sale of apps is very different than a commission being for the sale of apps. Apple terms for developer membership include both a $99 fee and a commission on sales that meet specific terms.
I'd clarify that the core fee is different based on new EU terms vs old terms, not App Store vs third-party. An app sold under the new terms through the App Store would still be subject to the fee.