Because the Mac existed like 30 years before the iPhone and things change. This isn't complicated. Apple also used to charge $129 for every new version of OS X; now they're free.
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
Because the Mac existed like 30 years before the iPhone and things change. This isn't complicated. Apple also used to charge $129 for every new version of OS X; now they're free.
If Apple are experimenting on products, such as they did with Apple Silicon Macs running whatever iPhone processor was available at the time, I doubt that the company hasn't considered for years that they would have to change their App Store.
They're just seeing what they can do to slow the progress.
But they are forcing that discoverability onto developers. If a developer wants to release a free crappy little home-cooked app for some service only relevant to their small 100 person town, they won't need the App Store to distribute it because they can literally bike around to everyone with a USB stick and install it in an afternoon if they wanted to.
Discoverability via the App Store is great, and will keep all serious apps on the App Store, but it shouldn't be forced upon developers who don't need it.
Similarly, how is it fair that said developer above is paying the same amount per year ($99/year developer fee) as a multi-national mega-corporation like Google or Microsoft? As mentioned earlier in this thread, that fee is super reasonable as a firewall against spam on the App Store, but it has no relevance to the process when I'm emailing an IPA to my buddy for them to install.
The whole argument that Apple even has any IP to protect from abuse outside the App Store hinges on the expectation that there will be a mass exodus of apps out from the App Store if it were possible to not pay it, and that just won't happen, why? 1. because any relevant apps want to be installable on a global market and will stay on the App Store for that reason alone, 2. look at Android, it's been possible there since day one and nobody is installing apps from outside the Play Store except for geeks like me (and the apps I install that way generally aren't allowed on Play Store anyway because they are things like terminal emulators, network diagnostic tools, things that will load other pieces of code like terminal programs, which isn't allowed on the App Store for good reason), the same will be true of the App Store regardless of the outcome here, even if Apple removes all of their rent-seeking fees entirely, still no big developer will leave the App Store because it's just too convenient for users.
The exception MAY be Epic Games, and that's only possibly going to be successful now because of the huge drama Apple has caused surrounding all of this, which has given Epic free media coverage about this issue for years.
Spotify and similar sized developers may also release an app outside the App Store, but they will always keep a version on the App Store anyway, because not being easily discoverable loses them too many customers.
This exactly, Apple should have allowed free sideloading on their own terms years ago, literally nobody would be making a fuss over it and it wouldn't be used by anyone except geeks like me. Ironically, by not doing that, Apple has invited regulators to make the decision for them, and it won't be the most beneficial one to Apple at all ultimately. They will likely now be required to make it much easier to sideload than has been possible on Android, and they're having to make concessions to App Store rules as well, as the regulation has caused the EU to create a new market segment where the App Store sits, and new rules will now apply to it regardless of if Apple now opens up sideloading entirely.
Apple f-ed up by being greedy for too long.
Last edited:
That attitude is certain to warm the hearts of devs, and more importantly for Apple, regulators.
If they're not in the App Store, and not distributed by the App Store, then what are they costing Apple?
Push notifications?
Apple insists that they continue to insert themselves in the process with notarization.
Other cloud services have shown us that the costs are nowhere near what they are proposing. Even in the linked video the guy says AWS billed him $15k, and that was for actual hosting. That is a far, far cry from five MILLION Euros.
And, because he explained the situation and wasn't charging money, AWS waived the fee, even though they did have the right to charge him.
This was his whole point. The CTF is there as a chilling effect, not to offset costs. It's not even intended to be used, it is a deterrent.
EDIT: Just to point out, his whole point was $15k is not a bankrupting amount of money and is arguably reasonable. FIVE MILLION EUROS is not. And I think he got his point across very well. The video is worth the four or so minutes.
Last edited:
It's almost like that's the entirety of Apple's strategy to keep developers in their app store
Yes I waited the whole time and the entirety of his actual answer was "stay tuned" and it was very last words.
What I find most baffling about Apple's proposal (the CTF), is that it's the perfect embodiment of the things that got Apple into hot water in the first place. It's a fee that is designed to keep competition out.
The point is he had no way to know ahead of time it would be so popular. And by then it's too late, he's at Apple's mercy. He owes Apple five million Euros for something he didn't charge anyone for.
This is the point of the CTF, to deter people from even trying. And if you watch the video it's clear that Apple now seems to realize that's not going to fly.
I agree. I think the proper scope to consider is distribution of iOS apps. Yes, people point out that that seems like tautology, but it's not. No other operating system has an absolute iron grip on all software distribution and commerce on its platform. It is admirable and remarkable, but they've gone too far and won't reign themselves in.
Not so. Copying a piece of software is not theft because nothing has been taken from the original creator; they still have the original.
What has been taken is the possibility of a sale and earnings. This is the theft part but only applicable if the item in question is on sale in the first place. It is currently impossible to buy GBA titles from Nintendo or anybody else so therefore using roms of those titles is fair use.
Apple has been giving away free access for over a decade. If the company decides to start charging, then fine they can do that. But they need to charge every developer, not just the developers who don't use the App Store. And they also need to allow developers to avoid the fee by not using any platform SDKs/core OS functions.
Give developers free access just the basics (draw pixels to the screen, read/write to memory and storage, send network packets, etc). The community can (and will) build open source SDKs on top of that. Will they be as good as SwiftUI? Probably not. But they'd be close enough.
iOS is a platform that billions of people depend on, and it's time for Apple to allow real competition to thrive on iOS.
Last edited:
This video gives me hope actually. I didn't know this position existed, this VP of Regulatory compliance. First I've heard of him, and in this video at least he seems at least somewhat humbled.
Maybe, just maybe this is the venue for the dialog we all needed to have with Apple (all being developers AND users, two different but equally important groups) to finally make some meaningful change.
Thing is there's really three groups. Users, indie developers, and the handful of big companies that Apple somehow has to make rules for without also screwing everyone else.
I'm feeling optimistic at the moment, we'll see.
He doesn't owe apple anything, it's hypothetical.
*Edit*
You probably realize that and I missed the tone. I would delete this if I could...
Yes exactly. He is proposing this hypothetical based on his actual experience, to illustrate the flaw in Apple's logic. And it seems to have worked.
He did in fact owe AWS $15k which is not a bankrupting amount of money, but FIVE MILLION EUROS is. Which is what he WOULD HAVE owed Apple in this exact same scenario under their proposed rules.
No, but I have no problem with you asking.
It's always important to be sure we understand one another.
Nothing is really free. There is a cost to everything and Apple spends hundreds of millions to billions per year supporting their platforms. The two companies with lots of Chinese ownership, Epic and Spotify both make less than 10 of their money from the App Store, so what is their real motivation. They want access to Apple customers outside of their protection. They too may need to be reviewed for security concerns.
Apple has every right to charge companies to use their products. Nothing is free. It’s really simple. Apple only supports profitable products and services long term. When they become unprofitable they get cancelled. There are also lots of Apple products and services that are not available in the EU or other regions. The EU is about get paused and features turned off because they are a problem.
The main point is there will come a point when new development in the EU will be impacted. Remember the original iPhone only supported webapps for 3rd parties. That may be the future for the EU. Full access would be restricted to 1st party apps.
Those wanting Apple to forge CTFs will probably also want Apple to indemnify them when a patent holder wins a judgment for the tech they are using.
The EU will not be in any legal position to tell Apple they have to give their IP away free. In that case, the WTO has the last word.
Sounds like in certain regions, people strongly agree with the model. That is a poor reason. In fact, it's the opposite of the argument that the consumer is being harmed. In these "certain regions", do the people not have a choice?