Apple's EU Core Technology Fee Could Bankrupt Freemium App Developers

[little2v]

I find it completely ironic that people here justify Apple's behavior because they "develop a platform".
I pay them for the phone hardware and software and I have a right to do with my hardware what I want.
If I want to run open source or any other software on *MY* device who is it for Apple to say I can't?
I wouldn't buy a laptop that constrained me to the vendor's app store and I won't buy a phone that does the same.

This is true unless you hold the view that Apple has rights to the device you paid for.

I will not use an iPhone until I can sideload.
I use Android because I can specifically sideload. I can run a local VPN and block ads in my browser.

Apple is not the victim here. Apple has evolved MacOS/iOS over the years but let's not forget modern MacOS was deived from NextStep that used a CMU Mach Micro Kernel. While apple has replaced all the code over time with Apple Code; Apple's modern underpinnings weren't even the idea of Apple.

Once again, I will not buy a computer that I don't own and until you can install apps that you you want on your device without an app store you don't own your device. I don't need an app store to install an application on my Android. I can copy the application to the storage and just install it.

There are security concerns, but they belong to me not my device vendor. I don't need to be protected from myself.
I can install what I want, when I want on my MacOS computer, Windows, Linux and to a large extent my Android phone.

For those that talk about their personal information on the phone? My laptop has years of tax returns, W2's, banking information, etc. So stop with the whole "Apple wants to protect your information".
What Apple wants is to protect it's predatory practices with it's app store.

That being said I have been an Apple share holder for for multiple decades. That does not mean I excuse all the corporate decisions.

They don't sell hardware or a platform. They sell an ecosystem. The point of buying Apple is how everything plays together and the services experience that go with it. The value of each piece of hardware goes up as you purchase more hardware. The phone on it's own is mediocre, but a phone + laptop + watch, is a powerhouse. The software experiences can't be replicated without the hardware control and visa versa. That is the thing Apple beat everyone by a mile with hands down. If you're looking at it as buying a piece of hardware, you are looking at it very wrong.

Apple sells an experience that is differentiated from other experiences because of seeing complaints and listening to complaints about Linux, Windows and Android. They are solving a problem for folks that don't want what you are describing.

I don't want the fractured app store that Android deals with. I don't want the different hardware and OSes that android offers. I don't want the wild west world of Windows. I don't want my phone to be one device and my computer to be another. Nothing about that world is appealing to me.

I want my phone, tablet and laptop to just work, not worry about the apps I install, be able to share app state across and with multiple devices and for hardware to just work.

 

[cupcakes2000]

They don't sell hardware or a platform. They sell an ecosystem. The point of buying Apple is how everything plays together and the services experience that go with it. The value of each piece of hardware goes up as you purchase more hardware. The phone on it's own is mediocre, but a phone + laptop + watch, is a powerhouse. The software experiences can't be replicated without the hardware control and visa versa. That is the thing Apple beat everyone by a mile with hands down. If you're looking at it as buying a piece of hardware, you are looking at it very wrong.

Apple sells an experience that is differentiated from other experiences because of seeing complaints and listening to complaints about Linux, Windows and Android. They are solving a problem for folks that don't want what you are describing.

I don't want the fractured app store that Android deals with. I don't want the different hardware and OSes that android offers. I don't want the wild west world of Windows. I don't want my phone to be one device and my computer to be another. Nothing about that world is appealing to me.

I want my phone, tablet and laptop to just work, not worry about the apps I install, be able to share app state across and with multiple devices and for hardware to just work.

A: you can still keep all that. Just don’t use another AppStore. Do you honestly only use the AppStore on a Mac though, and you don’t get anything from anywhere else?
B: even if you did install an app on the iPhone from a different source, that won’t immediately stop all of your devices from working together.
C: not everybody owns whatever Apple produce. Plenty most people just have an iPhone.

 

[little2v]

Except if you want to make an app that deals with something that Apple ‘doesn’t agree with’, or if you want to be free as in libre and have every aspect of your app be open.

All this ‘Apple did that for you so pay’. What rot. Why does Apple need to give anyone anything? I mean, great if you want that and they offer excellent tools, but why should it be a necessity without any other option?

Care to elaborate on the bribes which you’re talking about?

If you don't want to use the various SDK's and API's give, why even build on iOS? The value proposition is that a lot of heavy work is already done for the app, you can build an app with these SDK's and not have to write as much code and ship an app faster with virtually zero up front cost. Not even Android can make that claim. Google charges for Firebase. There's a large % of Apple only apps being built because those tools exist. Why should a 3rd party app store be allowed to distribute apps without paying Apple for the SDK's that Apple built or the infrastructure Apple has to run to support them?

People don't realize how big Apples server farm is just to support this stuff. Things like continuity where an App you open on your phone shows up on your laptop or your iPad with no work, requires very large complex backend state. No one, not even Epic games, has the capacity to support billions of devices doing this. Or app downloads. There are some things that only Apple and Google have the scale to do.

 

[Abazigal]

You don't agree.
Shrink-wrapped EULA aren't valid or enforceable.

You buy a device to use as you see fit - or modify, if you like to.
The manufacturer can't legally prohibit you from doing that after the sale.

You can't agree to something you weren't shown when buying the device.
And if you didn't buy the device from Apple, you don't even have a contractual relationship with them.

(That said, there remain of course legal restrictions on copying and distribution of software by law)

Why then am I limited in the ways I can get games onto gaming consoles like the Switch? If anything, Nintendo's firm control of the third party developer market actually predates the iOS App Store model (eg: them requiring developers to pass a battery of tests and pay a 30% cut before they could receive a chip that worked with the NES). Fast forward to today, Nintendo continues to differentiate itself with a unique gaming form factor that thrives despite having outdates specs, as well as a huge library of first party games that help to prop up its platform. It's really just the gaming version of the iPhone.

In other words, Apple didn't create the 30% rule out of thin air; it copied them from consoles.

A lot of things that Apple is being criticised for doing, other gaming consoles seem to get away with a free pass (despite them having done it first), even though they are all selling the same thing - a vertically integrated offering. If you say the iPhone ought to be different because it's seen (and used) as more of a general purpose computer, that also feels like an artificial distinction that isn't supported by law.

Or are you saying that Nintendo ought to be next in terms of allowing sideloading and third party app stores onto their platform?

 

[cupcakes2000]

If you don't want to use the various SDK's and API's give, why even build on iOS? The value proposition is that a lot of heavy work is already done for the app, you can build an app with these SDK's and not have to write as much code and ship an app faster with virtually zero up front cost. Not even Android can make that claim. Google charges for Firebase. There's a large % of Apple only apps being built because those tools exist. Why should a 3rd party app store be allowed to distribute apps without paying Apple for the SDK's that Apple built or the infrastructure Apple has to run to support them?

People don't realize how big Apples server farm is just to support this stuff. Things like continuity where an App you open on your phone shows up on your laptop or your iPad with no work, requires very large complex backend state. No one, not even Epic games, has the capacity to support billions of devices doing this. Or app downloads. There are some things that only Apple and Google have the scale to do.

And yet I want to write cool utilities and useful apps on github and tinker and give them away for free. I can on every platform except iOS, and even after the change, I still can’t do it without risking surpassing some arbitrary download limit resulting in potentially owing millions, and without having to create an ‘AppStore’ to push it. Why should iOS users miss out?

 

[little2v]

A: you can still keep all that. Just don’t use another AppStore. Do you honestly only use the AppStore on a Mac though, and you don’t get anything from anywhere else?
B: even if you did install an app on the iPhone from a different source, that won’t immediately stop all of your devices from working together.
C: not everybody owns whatever Apple produce. Plenty most people just have an iPhone.

Do you know how engrained the App Store and Apple backends are? Entitlement management, permissions management, build support, updates, apps that work on iPad/macOS. All that has to be broken to support a 3rd party app store. Plus apps distributed through a 3rd party would have to be written differently in a lot of ways to disable CloudKit. Even things like hardware encryption for iCloud keys have to be handled differently. I don't want someone like Epic having any of this, I don't trust them at all.

As a dev, no thanks! I don't have any desire to build for Android and I don't want to have to build my apps 2 different ways to support this. This is ruining a perfectly good, functioning, profitable for everyone ecosystem. Devs make **** loads of money off the Apple App Store and I don't see any reason to change other than Epic is a big greedy cry baby.

I know not everyone uses all the devices, but the value goes up a lot when you do. I can run every iOS app on my laptop and such. UI Kit allows devs to write code once, run anywhere. I can switch devices and not lose my place or pick up a conversation from my ipad on my phone or watch, transfer calls without dropping them, etc. Lots of day to day features only work with multiple devices.

 

[little2v]

And yet I want to write cool utilities and useful apps on github and tinker and give them away for free. I can on every platform except iOS, and even after the change, I still can’t do it without risking surpassing some arbitrary download limit resulting in potentially owing millions, and without having to create an ‘AppStore’ to push it. Why should iOS users miss out?

That's not how the download limit works. It's when you register and change models from % to per install base.

But why are you so afraid of the app store? I literally do this all the time and distribute free apps and don't monetize them? That's half the fun of the Apple path, I can build a simple app for keeping track of timeslips at the race track, which uses iCloud drive and CloudKit and it's free and I don't pay Apple anything. I'd spend thousands/month to build a backend in Amazon to support it on Android. I spend $0/mo to host 13TB of pictures of timeslips, key value data, search and downloads/uploads.

There are still plenty of ways to build for iOS outside of the App Store. You just have to do more work to do it and build some of your own backend infrastructure or folks can jailbreak if they want.

 

[AppliedMicro]

A lot of things that Apple is being criticised for doing, other gaming consoles seem to get away with a free pass (despite them having done it first), even though they are all selling the same thing - a vertically integrated offering

True.

But an iPhone does (and serves as the platform for) so much more than a gaming console.

That's why a distinction has been made in terms of regulation.
There's absolutely nothing unusual about that.

Building regulations may differ for small family homes to large commercial or factory buildings - even on the very same things (e.g. toilets or lifts).

 

[cupcakes2000]

Do you know how engrained the App Store and Apple backends are? Entitlement management, permissions management, build support, updates, apps that work on iPad/macOS. All that has to be broken to support a 3rd party app store. Plus apps distributed through a 3rd party would have to be written differently in a lot of ways to disable CloudKit. Even things like hardware encryption for iCloud keys have to be handled differently. I don't want someone like Epic having any of this, I don't trust them at all.

As a dev, no thanks! I don't have any desire to build for Android and I don't want to have to build my apps 2 different ways to support this. This is ruining a perfectly good, functioning, profitable for everyone ecosystem. Devs make **** loads of money off the Apple App Store and I don't see any reason to change other than Epic is a big greedy cry baby.

I know not everyone uses all the devices, but the value goes up a lot when you do. I can run every iOS app on my laptop and such. UI Kit allows devs to write code once, run anywhere. I can switch devices and not lose my place or pick up a conversation from my ipad on my phone or watch, transfer calls without dropping them, etc. Lots of day to day features only work with multiple devices.

I use a Mac mini (I have 2) an iPad 12.9 pro (I have 2), and an iPhone 13 Pro. I love how they work together. I also use GrapheneOS, and QubesOS. Getting anything off an Apple device and onto another system is a real nightmare. You ever tried exporting a load of Apple notes, for example?

I like Apple, and I use the eco system. I also happen to believe and have spent time arguing against the opening up of the walled garden. Grandma being tricked into downloading a fake bank app is a real issue.

But I prefer allure of not being told what I can have as an app (I can’t get an app for my vape on iOS. I mean, what?)

 

[cupcakes2000]

That's not how the download limit works. It's when you register and change models from % to per install base.

But why are you so afraid of the app store? I literally do this all the time and distribute free apps and don't monetize them? That's half the fun of the Apple path, I can build a simple app for keeping track of timeslips at the race track, which uses iCloud drive and CloudKit and it's free and I don't pay Apple anything. I'd spend thousands/month to build a backend in Amazon to support it on Android. I spend $0/mo to host 13TB of pictures of timeslips, key value data, search and downloads/uploads.

There are still plenty of ways to build for iOS outside of the App Store. You just have to do more work to do it and build some of your own backend infrastructure or folks can jailbreak if they want.

I’m not afraid of it. But Apple tell me what I can or cannot have. That isn’t something I like particularly.

Jail break? That’s insecure.

The download limit works exactly like that. If I happened to release a free app outside of the AppStore that became ridiculously popular overnight, I would end up owing them a lot of money for nothing.

 

[little2v]

I use a Mac mini (I have 2) an iPad 12.9 pro (I have 2), and an iPhone 13 Pro. I love how they work together. I also use GrapheneOS, and QubesOS. Getting anything off an Apple device and onto another system is a real nightmare. You ever tried exporting a load of Apple notes, for example?

I like Apple, and I use the eco system. I also happen to believe and have spent time arguing against the opening up of the walled garden. Grandma being tricked into downloading a fake bank app is a real issue.

But I prefer allure of not being told what I can have as an app (I can’t get an app for my vape on iOS. I mean, what?)

To be fair, some of those apps don't want to play by a known set of rules and I feel that's on them, not Apple. Apple's entitlement process has existed from day 1. The vape one, in particular, is something I know about as I worked on a similar project. That is them building something in React Native and not ObjC/Swift. To use Bluetooth entitlements, you have to use ObjC/Swift. They could easily solve that, as others have with hardware.

There's a lot to be said for the issues that come with cross platform development. Using things like Flutter and React Native introduce a host of hardware limits and UI problems. I don't care for it as a small indy dev and since the adoption rates are so much higher and conversion rates are much higher in Apples world, I build in Swift. There are some fun projects around Swift on Android. But man, I do not miss building Java apps and dealing with Android GC after building in Swift and ObjC.

 

[cupcakes2000]

To be fair, some of those apps don't want to play by a known set of rules and I feel that's on them, not Apple. Apple's entitlement process has existed from day 1. The vape one, in particular, is something I know about as I worked on a similar project. That is them building something in React Native and not ObjC/Swift. To use Bluetooth entitlements, you have to use ObjC/Swift. They could easily solve that, as others have with hardware.

Not even slightly. What are you talking about. Apple banned ALL vape apps. Because, it’s bad for me?

Apple Removing Vaping-Related Apps From App Store Today Amid Public Health Concerns

Apple is removing all vaping-related apps from the App Store today, according to Axios, shortly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

www.macrumors.com

That’s great. But that means there is no way to get a vape app on iOS (this is one example of many such examples).

This should no longer be the case.

But you, for example, just leave your system how it is and don’t install anything outside of apples garden (it’s safer for sure). Nothing wrong with that.

 

[little2v]

I’m not afraid of it. But Apple tell me what I can or cannot have. That isn’t something I like particularly.

Jail break? That’s insecure.

The download limit works exactly like that. If I happened to release a free app outside of the AppStore that became ridiculously popular overnight, I would end up owing them a lot of money for nothing.

If you have an overnight success of an app on another app store, yes, you owe them money. However, you are using their backend infrastructure for a lot of things, so it's not "for nothing". You are paying for use of all the SDK's, the backend state in CloudKit, any data you may store on Apple's servers, support of the device, updates, etc. Hence it's called Core Technology Fee.

Or you can just share 15/30% of your revenue with them and move on without owing them.

 

[cupcakes2000]

If you have an overnight success of an app on another app store, yes, you owe them money. However, you are using their backend infrastructure for a lot of things, so it's not "for nothing". You are paying for use of all the SDK's, the backend state in CloudKit, any data you may store on Apple's servers, support of the device, updates, etc. Hence it's called Core Technology Fee.

Or you can just share 15/30% of your revenue with them and move on without owing them.

Cool. Yet a free app on the AppStore doesn’t pay? Hmmm.

 

[little2v]

Not even slightly. What are you talking about. Apple banned ALL vape apps. Because, it’s bad for me?

Apple Removing Vaping-Related Apps From App Store Today Amid Public Health Concerns

Apple is removing all vaping-related apps from the App Store today, according to Axios, shortly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

www.macrumors.com

That’s great. But that means there is no way to get a vape app on iOS (this is one example of many such examples).

This should no longer be the case.

But you, for example, just leave your system how it is and don’t install anything outside of apples garden (it’s safer for sure). Nothing wrong with that.

Dang, I didn't know they actually made a statement about that. I worked on a project that was denied for hardware reasons. Even sex toys are allowed to have an App.

Interesting... yeah that ones overstepping.

 

[little2v]

Cool. Yet a free app on the AppStore doesn’t pay? Hmmm.

That's the point of the rev share model. Everyone pays into the pool and everyone benefits from the pool. As opposed to a pay for consumption model. Small apps and big apps get the same opportuntities and capability.

And that's the single reason Epic got what they got. They were releasing multiple updates per day, being downloaded by a **** load of devices and bypassing Apples payment flow, so effectively stealing Apples bandwidth. Upwards of 100 million 3-5 gig downloads a week for free. Every time anyone on an Apple device downloaded a Fortnite update, that came from Apples servers, not Epics. Epic couldn't handle that load if their life depended on it. The freemium model breaks the rev share model if people bypass Apple for in-app purchases.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Even sex toys are allowed to have an App

Again though, why wouldn’t they be ‘allowed’? It’s got nothing to do with Apple. Nothing at all.

Illegal content should remain illegal, anything else is irrelevant.

 

[cupcakes2000]

That's the point of the rev share model. Everyone pays into the pool and everyone benefits from the pool. As opposed to a pay for consumption model. Small apps and big apps get the same opportuntities and capability.

And that's the single reason Epic got what they got. They were releasing multiple updates per day, being downloaded by a **** load of devices and bypassing Apples payment flow, so effectively stealing Apples bandwidth. Upwards of 100 million 3-5 gig downloads a week for free. Every time anyone on an Apple device downloaded a Fortnite update, that came from Apples servers, not Epics. Epic couldn't handle that load if their life depended on it. The freemium model breaks the rev share model if people bypass Apple for in-app purchases.

You will be able to say next to nothing that makes me agree with you in this case.

1- I pay the 99 dev fee and make a free app and give it away on the App Store. I pay nothing ever.
2- I pay the 99 dev fee and make a free app and give it away on the GitHub store. If I make a flyaway success (everyone’s dream right?) I’ll be having Apple take money from me that I haven’t even made?

 

[little2v]

Again though, why wouldn’t they be ‘allowed’? It’s got nothing to do with Apple. Nothing at all.

Illegal content should remain illegal, anything else is irrelevant.

I don't disagree. I was just saying it's silly to ban vapes when sex toys are allowed as a comparison.

I don't mind banning apps that aren't compliant around how it interfaces with hardware and software on the phone. I do mind Apple taking a moral position on what is and isn't appropriate though. Ironic that I can build an app for a sex toy but not a vape though.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And that's the single reason Epic got what they got. They were releasing multiple updates per day, being downloaded by a **** load of devices and bypassing Apples payment flow, so effectively stealing Apples bandwidth. Upwards of 100 million 3-5 gig downloads a week for free. Every time anyone on an Apple device downloaded a Fortnite update, that came from Apples servers, not Epics. Epic couldn't handle that load if their life depended on it.

App updates usually download only a tiny fraction of the overall app size.

Epic would have gladly handled it themselves (with the help of CDNs of course, just as Apple does) were it not for Apple taking a commission.

 

[little2v]

You will be able to say next to nothing that makes me agree with you in this case.

1- I pay the 99 dev fee and make a free app and give it away on the App Store. I pay nothing ever.
2- I pay the 99 dev fee and make a free app and give it away on the GitHub store. If I make a flyaway success (everyone’s dream right?) I’ll be having Apple take money from me that I haven’t even made?

Yeah, that's the choice of the business model you choose then. You can choose to rev share with Apple and have no out of pocket expense. Or you can use a 3rd party and pay for use the things you use on the device and Apples infra. Your call which business model you want to leverage. No matter which route you take, you are using Apples tools and services in perpetuity in the form of updates and online services on the phone.

Where there should be an exception is if you make an app with zero entitlements and you can't use any back end Apple services. No iMessage, no iCloud Drive, Notes, no App State, no Continuity, no Photo Stream, etc. If you, as a dev, want to build your own back end services and distribute the App owing nothing to Apple, you should have that ability as a 3rd choice.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I don't disagree. I was just saying it's silly to ban vapes when sex toys are allowed as a comparison.

Vaping is clearly harmful to your health - use of sex toys isn‘t?!

 

[cupcakes2000]

I don't disagree. I was just saying it's silly to ban vapes when sex toys are allowed as a comparison.

I don't mind banning apps that aren't compliant around how it interfaces with hardware and software on the phone. I do mind Apple taking a moral position on what is and isn't appropriate though. Ironic that I can build an app for a sex toy but not a vape though.

Well, that’s my point. Glad we agree. With the AppStore opened up a bit, so long as Apple clean up some of the nonsense around the new rules, then they can be a ‘moral’ as they want.

 

[little2v]

App updates usually download only a tiny fraction of the overall app size.

Epic would have gladly handled it themselves (with the help of CDNs of course, just as Apple does) were it not for Apple taking a commission.

iOS updates are full downloads tested. But it goes beyond the updates. Testing, lifecycle management, logs, telemetry, versioning, notifications, etc.

Yes, Epic wants to handle it themselves and they have the engineering resources to do so. Others do not. Apple enables Epic scale for Indy devs.

Apple runs their own CDN btw. They outgrew Akamai and others. Apples infra needs exceed the sum total of every CDN combined and then some. They use every CDN on planet earth to support iOS downloads.

 

[little2v]

Vaping is clearly harmful to your health - use of sex toys isn‘t?!

What kind of sex toys are you using? ^.^