Americans branding everything slightly progressive as communist is the funniest!
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's EU Core Technology Fee Could Bankrupt Freemium App Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So basically, the way Apple is getting around EU rules/law is to design a piece of code that complies with the EU rulings but then make it so that piece of code is chargeable and then change the app store T&C's telling app developers if they want to use that piece of code they have to pay for it.
Sorry Apple but the word starting with SK and ending in M comes to mind. Such a despicable way to behave towards app developers and the EU.
Sorry Apple but the word starting with SK and ending in M comes to mind. Such a despicable way to behave towards app developers and the EU.
Apple will go ahead because they prefer to fight in court.
Apple is already contesting their status as a "gatekeeper" by basically saying the law shouldn't apply to them. Apple will fight with the EU on why $0.50 is fair, balanced, and proportionate. EU lawyers will argue otherwise.
EU isn’t forcing Apple to even have app notarisation, that is something they dreamed up themselves to try to bury alternative app stores under fees. The EU is forcing Apple to not dictate what software users have access to, they could have chosen the Android route where the end user can install software from whichever source they want to.
If Apple want to charge for their developer tools they are free to do that, as long as they price them the same no matter where the developer intends to publish their software.
Why not? They’re selling billions of Euros in phones every year.
Apple has a much lower market sahre.
Since there’s a lack of competing mobile phone OS and application stores, access to these should be regulated.
…and Apple shouldn‘t be entitled to more than the sales price of the phone, when customers choose to buy their software/digital content elsewhere.
Last edited:
When Boeing and Intel receive billions in subsidies, Americans call it patriotism.
When other countries subsidize and protect their markets, it's communism.
They should as they are not gatekeepers. Europeans can access their Tinder on PC, Mac, iOS, Android, ChromeOS, Linux, …
The iPhone is just a computer in the end and Apple doesn’t have a monopoly.
Why should Apple provide a service for free so that EU developer can leech of Apple platform for free?
And you know that the $99/yr developer fee doesn’t cover all the development costs of iOS since that can be the cost of a simple iOS app, while iOS is much bigger.
It's not what me and you think, but what EU law says. A "gatekeeper" does not have to be a monopoly.
"There are three main quantitative criteria that create the presumption that a company is a gatekeeper as defined in the DMA: (i) when the company achieves a certain annual turnover in the European Economic Area and it provides a core platform service in at least three EU Member States;(ii) when the company provides a core platform service to more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the EU and to more than 10,000 yearly active business users established in the EU; and (iii) when the company met the second criterion during the last three years."
Digital Markets Act: Commission designates six gatekeepers
The European Commission has today designated, for the first time, six gatekeepers, under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Wonder how Apple has been able to turn a profit with their Mac business where all this is absolutely the case?
Almost as if Apple is making hefty margins on the hardware.
Exactly, so access to APIs and such is something Apple sells access to for a fee and getting paid for from the developer licensing. My point is that nobody is forcing Apple to provide any services for free, they just cannot force the users to only get things from Apple.
I'm not sure... If I am reading this correctly, this whole article is aimed at alternate app stores (who, again if I understand correctly, are not being charged anything), not developers.Nice try Apple. The fee clearly violates the DMA regulation.
Apple has to try because they want money, but they'll be shot down in courts in no time.
The only winners here will be the lawyers.
View attachment 2341241
Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex
eur-lex.europa.eu
It seems to me there is a gap in what the regulation does and what people want it to do. It all comes down to competition and (like it or not) Apple doesn't actually compete with developers (with a few obvious exceptions, but in areas where they are not gatekeepers, like Spotify), they are Apple's customers. If the aim of the regulation is to lower prices for developers, it is very, very poorly written.
I think what it will come down to is whether Apple waiving the €0.50 fee for their own App Store for the first 1 million downloads, not the fee itself, is seen as an unfair advantage towards alternate app stores and disproportionate to the services Apple provides in maintaining API's, notarisation, ect.
I don’t understand why the two have to be mutually exclusive.
Why can’t a company be profitable in every aspect of their business’s model, from selling profitable hardware, to charging developers for apps sold on their App Store, to even getting a cut of Apple Pay transactions?
If alternative app stores are free of charge, Tinder can simply create it’s own alternative App Store and install their own Tinder app from this alternative App Store right without having to pay Apple anything?
edit: nvm, they have to pay Apple $0.50 for every install after 1 million installs so it is not a loophole
Last edited:
They can, they can't do that at the unreasonable expense of others.
If you offer a service users should use it because they are happy with the value it offers. If that value proposition is there you shouldn't need to force anybody to use it.
I mean, if I were a developer, I could be happy to pay Apple 30% if it means I get to run a successful business that makes a decent amount of profit, while also recognising that the less Apple takes, the more I keep.
Going along this line of logic, there is no cut above 0% that would satisfy developers. Do you think game developers are happy paying Nintendo 30%, or do they just see it as another cost of doing business? Not like Nintendo really gives them any say in the matter beyond “take it or leave it”.
Fair or unfair has nothing to do with this. It’s really all about leverage, who has it, and what one can get away with.
It is an issue since freemium is THE current model. I said before Apple would make sure this would be a dumpster fire and I guess we're seeing part of how they plan to make it not work.
Malicious compliance at it's most, well, Apple. I really hope the EU takes note and goes 'look you little 💩, you will honour the spirit of the agreement, not the letter or we will change the letter'
Publishers of alternative app stores need to pay the €0.5 platform fee from the very first download without it being waived for the first million users.
Of course the Developer Platform costs a lot of money, but apps are a very important part of the iPhone and iPad experience. So the costs of the Developer Platform and all those servers behind it are a part of the development costs of iPhones and iPads. Customers pay a high price for those devices.
Apple profits a lot from the Developer Platform. Without it Apple would have to create all those apps themselves. That sounds like an impossible task. If both sides profit from that deal, it seems unfair if one side charges the other side a ridiculous amount of money just because it can.
50 Cents per year does not seem a lot, but let's be honest: We have tons of apps on our phones and only use a fraction of them. There are apps that we did not use at all since we installed them, but under the new terms the developers would have to pay 50 Cents per year to Apple anyway.
And what about free apps that were written by enthusiasts without any intention to monetize them? Will those be forced to either stay in the official App Store or show ads to its users to pay for the fees?
Apple profits a lot from the Developer Platform. Without it Apple would have to create all those apps themselves. That sounds like an impossible task. If both sides profit from that deal, it seems unfair if one side charges the other side a ridiculous amount of money just because it can.
50 Cents per year does not seem a lot, but let's be honest: We have tons of apps on our phones and only use a fraction of them. There are apps that we did not use at all since we installed them, but under the new terms the developers would have to pay 50 Cents per year to Apple anyway.
And what about free apps that were written by enthusiasts without any intention to monetize them? Will those be forced to either stay in the official App Store or show ads to its users to pay for the fees?
Well, Adobe charge for the tools true, but they don’t then take commission on the money you make from what ever you created using their tools. More importantly, if you give said art away, they definitely don’t charge you for the privilege. The fact that Apple seem to think it’s ok to charge a developer for giving away an app, after paying the developer yearly fee, is absolutely not on.
Ignorance is not a good soapbox to stand on. Healthcare here is paid for by taxation, nobody is ignorant of that. Obviously. They’re paying the tax. But unlike whatever country you’re from, our poor people don’t die due to being poor and unable to afford healthcare or insurance, or incur thousands in debt in order to cure a disease they happen to get. You might not agree with this type of social net, but don’t tarr the millions of people that realise that giving a little to help a lot is an ok thing to do, with your brush.
Except I’m not American. I’m not touching that App Store either way.
app developers are not leeching off Apple, ALL of them pay to use the app store, some more than others. Apple could leave things exactly the way they currently are but no, they want to stick the middle finger up at the EU for forcing Apple to make changes to how the app store is run in the EU. Instead of allowing app developers to just make subtle changes in their app coding, Apple are making small 'storekits' (bit's of code) that do the function instead but here's the catch, Apple are charging for use of these new 'storekits' and amending the app stores T&C's to say that if app developers want to make changes to their apps so they comply with EU law they must use the new 'storekits' to do so. This basically means, if an app developer wants to put a link in their app informing EU users that they can purchase something cheaper on the app makers website, the app developer has no choice but to use the new 'storekit' code to do so but that new storekit code is chargeable.
It is clear this is Apple's approach to dealing with the EU, make new storekits that add the functions that the EU are making law, then change the app stores T&C's telling app developers they are to use these new storekits if they want their app to be used in the EU but because these new storekits had to be written, they are to be charged for every time they are used.
It would be very easy for an app developer to just re-edit their code to include links in their app that inform their users they can get stuff cheaper elsewhere but no, Apple have made it so the app developer must use the new storekits to do it.
It's like this. Remember the days when people used to play with computers at stores and shops and they would type
10 Print "Hello"
20 Goto 10
and it would display the word Hello down the computer monitor. Well Apples new approach to this is
10 Function 'Print Hello'
20 call 'Print Hello'
the function contains the code that prints the word Hello down the computer monitor BUT because the function was written by someone else, that someone can charge for it's use and that is exactly what Apple is doing. Instead of allowing app developers to re-edit their code with code that does what needs to be done, Apple has made a function that does the job instead and has told app developers they must use that function and because that function was written by Apple, Apple can charge for it's use and here's the kicker. If the app developer does not use the new function, they cannot put links in their app telling their uses of cheaper options elsewhere.