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

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Yeah, Microsoft is really hurting…. 🤣

Microsoft Overtakes Apple as World's Most Valuable Company [Updated]

Microsoft today overtook Apple as the world's most valuable public company by market value. Apple's share price dropped by just one percent,...

www.macrumors.com

The Antitrust verdict in US v Microsoft was nearly 24 years ago! Gates has admitted that the antitrust stuff hurt them and probably cost them in mobile.

Sure, Nadella has come in a transformed their business and they are in really good shape now.

 

[deeddawg]

The Antitrust verdict in US v Microsoft was nearly 24 years ago! Gates has admitted that the antitrust stuff hurt them and probably cost them in mobile.

Sure, Nadella has come in a transformed their business and they are in really good shape now.

Exactly. Such setbacks are often temporary.

Those in the short strokes imagining Apple’s demise are likely to be unsatisfied, just as the Microsoft haters have been in decades past. Unless they completely screw the pooch in understanding their target market, global mega corporations will remain global mega corporation.

 

[robertosh]

‪Great move. Keep these garbage apps off the iPhone. ‬

If you read the article you will see that nothing will change. In fact, is even the opposite, now these garbage apps have no other app store to go (because is inviable) and they will stick to the official and shiny app store.

 

[I7guy]

Maybe, but this 'duke it out' approach didn't end well for Microsoft. Maybe Tim could pivot to philanthropy after the trials

As others have pointed out the Microsoft travails were almost a lifetime ago in the dawn of the internet age.

 

[Abazigal]

As others have pointed out the Microsoft travails were almost a lifetime ago in the dawn of the internet age.

Not to mention that views and attitudes have changed since then. Can you imagine buying a computer or smartphone today, only to be told that it doesn't with a browser preinstalled because that would be "anti-competitive"?

In a way, I wish Microsoft would be more willing to improve the basic capabilities of their preinstalled apps, because my work laptop really sucks for anything outside of the basic tasks. For example, why do I have to go into Microsoft Edge in order to annotate on a pdf document? Why can't they provide a PDF viewer like the preview app on macOS?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

As others have pointed out the Microsoft travails were almost a lifetime ago in the dawn of the internet age.

A full Antitrust trial would be time consuming and costly, even if they win.

Gates admitted that MS failure in mobile was, at least in part, due to them being distracted by the Antitrust trial.

As reported by The Verge, Gates made these claims at the New York Times' DealBook Conference earlier today. He said, "There's no doubt that the antitrust lawsuit was bad for Microsoft, and we would have been more focused on creating the phone operating system and so instead of using Android today you would be using Windows Mobile...If it hadn't been for the antitrust case...we were so close, I was just too distracted. I screwed that up because of the distraction."

 

[I7guy]

A full Antitrust trial would be time consuming and costly, even if they win.

Gates admitted that MS failure in mobile was, at least in part, due to them being distracted by the Antitrust trial.

Again, that was years ago and Microsoft is not apple. It’s as if using blackberry as an example and applying whatever lessons to apple.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Again, that was years ago and Microsoft is not apple. It’s as if using blackberry as an example and applying whatever lessons to apple.

Nah. There is no chance Apple is staving off all of the regulatory scrutiny without significant changes.

 

[Abazigal]

Nah. There is no chance Apple is staving off all of the regulatory scrutiny without significant changes.

This is what makes it so exciting. Two overly powerful, rent-seeking gatekeepers duking it out in plain sight of everybody, each giving no quarter while also expecting none in return.

And I have learnt not to bet against Apple, which is why I maintain that Tim Cook is arguably the best person to have led Apple since Steve Job's death. Not many people I know would have the savvy to navigate tricky business challenges and political environments. And unlike people like Elon Musk, he is not the sort to get easily triggered and go shooting his mouth off on social media or make hasty decisions on a whim.

I wouldn't be so quick as to write Apple off just yet.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

This is what makes it so exciting. Two overly powerful, rent-seeking gatekeepers duking it out in plain sight of everybody, each giving no quarter while also expecting none in return.

And I have learnt not to bet against Apple, which is why I maintain that Tim Cook is arguably the best person to have led Apple since Steve Job's death. Not many people I know would have the savvy to navigate tricky business challenges and political environments. And unlike people like Elon Musk, he is not the sort to get easily triggered and go shooting his mouth off on social media or make hasty decisions on a whim.

I wouldn't be so quick as to write Apple off just yet.

2024 is going to dominated by regulatory battles for them I think if the US suit drops soon.

I expected their response to the DMA to be petulant but i'm shocked at how much, my guess is the EU aren't accepting a lot of it.

It's going to be a very interesting year.

 

[Abazigal]

2024 is going to dominated by regulatory battles for them I think if the US suit drops soon.

I expected their response to the DMA to be petulant but i'm shocked at how much, my guess is the EU aren't accepting a lot of it.

It's going to be a very interesting year.

It would also explain Apple's response. If they give in to the EU, then they will be expected to make the exact same concessions to every other country levelling the same charges at them. But if this gets cleared by the EU, then Apple would have the perfect template to use against any other country seeking to open up iOS.

Apple plays the long game better than anyone else I know. You see it in their product roadmap, and it's interesting to see this being applied in their legal battles as well.

 

[I7guy]

Nah. There is no chance Apple is staving off all of the regulatory scrutiny without significant changes.

We will see. Right?

 

[amartinez1660]

Alright! There you go, got the option for alternative stores, original store, both stores or none…
Are we happy now? World peace is starting?

Judging by the comments, looks like not anytime soon… only when everything is offered anywhere “where I want it when I want it for the price of never dollars” is when this circus will end. So, never.

 

[heretiq]

Bear in mind that one of the main reasons PalmOS failed was a lack of 3rd party apps; and back in 2009 people were far less reliant on apps than they are now where a phone is the main daily personal computer for many people. WindowsPhone had a similar issue which is a shame because I really liked my work-issued one.

Point noted — somewhat. I also liked my Treo PalmOS device and my Compaq and HTC Windows CE and Windows Mobile devices. They all worked well and there was a very vibrant app ecosystem for PalmOS and Windows Mobile. I don’t recall any complaints about lack of apps.

Even without an App Store and third-party apps, the iPhone was just better and Apple was a much better run company than the competition in the eyes of many and this contributed to users quickly adopting it while the competitors faltered and failed.

I concede that (largely due to the success of the iPhone) Apps play a greater role today and the iPhone is a computer first and a phone second (or maybe even third after entertainment); however, I think the stock Apple apps cover a broad spectrum of information, communication, entertainment, health and productivity use cases, and are probably good enough for a majority of iPhone users. Add in privacy and security considerations and I would bet on high-value users choosing Apple hands-down if it came down to switching platforms because of app availability. It’s more likely that I’m wrong but that’s my 2c.

 

[darngooddesign]

Point noted — somewhat. I also liked my Treo PalmOS device and my Compaq and HTC Windows CE and Windows Mobile devices. They all worked well and there was a very vibrant app ecosystem for PalmOS and Windows Mobile. I don’t recall any complaints about lack of apps.

Even without an App Store and third-party apps, the iPhone was just better and Apple was a much better run company than the competition in the eyes of many and this contributed to users quickly adopting it while the competitors faltered and failed.

I concede that (largely due to the success of the iPhone) Apps play a greater role today and the iPhone is a computer first and a phone second (or maybe even third after entertainment); however, I think the stock Apple apps cover a broad spectrum of information, communication, entertainment, health and productivity use cases, and are probably good enough for a majority of iPhone users. Add in privacy and security considerations and I would bet on high-value users choosing Apple hands-down if it came down to switching platforms because of app availability. It’s more likely that I’m wrong but that’s my 2c.

Sorry, I meant Palm with WebOS, not PalmOS.

 

[bcortens]

Now imagine of the developer had just charged a dollar/euro for that app; they could be making over $500k per year.

No you wouldn’t because it isn’t per user it’s per install and updates are only treated as a single install within a calendar year.

 

[zaranoff]

I just have one question for you.

Can you elaborate how an open ecosystem can possibly be safer than a closed one? Given the existence of cases like this.

Android malware scam victims lost more than S$10 million in first half of 2023: Police

Over 750 cases of Android malware-related scams were reported in the first half of 2023, including 11 cases involving the unauthorised withdrawal of Central Provident Fund savings.

www.channelnewsasia.com

I am not saying that a closed App Store is 100% safe, but I do believe that a closed App Store would, all other things being equal, be safer than an open platform where users are free to install whatever app they want (because the freedom to do whatever you want naturally implies that some of those actions will not be the right one).

Likewise, not every side loaded app will automatically be a security risk, but will invariably end up being. You can't tell me that 1 million people who decide to sideload will somehow know how to identify and avoid all the bad apps.

I agree that choices are good, but I also don't agree with framing this argument as more choice vs less choice. To me, I see it as choice vs security (eg: android vs iOS), and I feel that users should have the choice of opting for a closed ecosystem in the interest of better security (and, if you refer to my linked article above, the option of being able to protect their life savings from malware).

When you enable sideloading on an iPhone, you are taking that choice (of not having a choice) away from users who specifically chose an iPhone precisely so they didn't have to deal with this sort of thing.

Let me just be clear - it is not your duty to care about the safety and the well-being of other people. There is nothing wrong in arguing for a more open ecosystem despite knowing fully well the ramifications it can have on other users. At least just be upfront about it. That yes, there are going to be people impacted, sometimes negatively, and that's just too bad for them.

Rather than pretend that sideloading is 100% benefit with completely zero downsides. Even if I choose not to sideload, there can still be impact to me. I. know it, and I believe you know it as well.

Just be honest. That's all I ask.

You raise some interesting aspects but at the same time fail to see my point.

To begin with, I have never claimed that something is absolute. Side loading does not only have advantages, likewise app stores do not only have disadvantages.

Furthermore, I don't understand your claim that side loading would in fact compromise your security. You and millions of other users can, lo and behold, choose whether you want to side load apps or not. Such is the case in the land of Mac, Windows and Android.

No one will rob you of the right to refuse side loading. This has nothing to do with you and your sense of security at all. The ability for others to side load has absolutely zero implications for you. There are zero things for you to deal with. You can choose to keep your iOS device closed down. Nothing would change from how you use your iOS devices today. You can choose to live in a closed ecosystem. Again, choice is the keyword here.

The article you cite is a great example of when security flaws are attributed to open systems and not to the weakest link, i.e. the end user. Flaws like these are found within all operating systems, both among mobile and desktop. Regardless of the openness of the applications within. The iOS app store as well as the Google Play Store are both filled with questionable applications. The only difference is that you place your trust in the app store and that the apps within, have been reviewed and verified by the vendor. You have no power over this. The choice to trust these vendors are made for you.

You are implying, in the context of this discussion, that choice and security are mutually exclusive. It could not be more further from the truth. This is an unhealthy approach to security and has bitten and will continue to bite more people in the butt.

What I'm trying to challenge is the twisted logic when people claim that the restrictions that iOS imposes are for the benefit of the end user. The argument would somewhat hold if the same applied to the Mac, which it doesn't. I love my macbook and it outruns all the computers I previously owned, both Windows and Linux, by a country mile. Should Apple, on the other hand, get around to restricting macOS like iOS, my macbook will go straight into the bin.

Yes, you are right, it's not my duty to tell people how to use their devices and what is right for them and I do not. What I do believe, however, is that irrational fears and the rampant misinformation are spreading like poison, which I will not and cannot let slide.

 

[darngooddesign]

No you wouldn’t because it isn’t per user it’s per install and updates are only treated as a single install within a calendar year.

The fee is .50 per install and you would be charging 1.00 per install.

 

[Samplasion]

The fee is .50 per install and you would be charging 1.00 per install.

The fee is 0.50€ per install and/or update and the App Store killed the paid update model.

 

[AppliedMicro]

For example, why do I have to go into Microsoft Edge in order to annotate on a pdf document? Why can't they provide a PDF viewer like the preview app on macOS?

Steering users towards their own web browser. Which, in turn, is designed to steer you into their online and AI-powered services (Bing, Copilot, etc.). And probably Microsoft Office, too.

It's all about ecosystem-building and luring or locking you in.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The fee is 0.50€ per install and/or update and the App Store killed the paid update model.

"Since a first annual install is only counted once per account, developers can deliver unlimited feature updates, bug fixes, and security patches to users for 12 months with no additional fee"

https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

 

[Samplasion]

"Since a first annual install is only counted once per account, developers can deliver unlimited feature updates, bug fixes, and security patches to users for 12 months with no additional fee"

https://developer.apple.com/support/core-technology-fee/

Huh, it's not as dire as I had thought. Still, it's crazy that a bug fix installed on the 366th day is billed as an app install. (Granted, this whole "billed installations" thing is nonsense)

 

[darngooddesign]

The fee is 0.50€ per install and/or update and the App Store killed the paid update model.

To be fair, it is an annual fee so any updates or redownloads/reinstalls within a 12 month period would not have the fee. I suspect that will change to only paying the fee for the first install before the EU approves it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I think the stock Apple apps cover a broad spectrum of information, communication, entertainment, health and productivity use cases, and are probably good enough for a majority of iPhone users. Add in privacy and security considerations and I would bet on high-value users choosing Apple hands-down if it came down to switching platforms because of app availability.

They'd leave. In droves.

I'd put it slightly differently: Apple apps cover a broad spectrum of information, communication, entertainment, health and productivity use cases, and are probably good enough for many (or even most) needs the average customer has.

But not for everything.
There'll always be a few missing links.

You can forget about about mass-market smartphone platform in Europe if there's no native WhatsApp client - just as you're dead in the water without WeChat in China.

In addition to that, a lack of, for instance, public transport and payment apps will be your quick undoing. It's not necessarily very many apps per customer - but a few that they'll feel are essential.

 

[bcortens]

The fee is .50 per install and you would be charging 1.00 per install.

It's 0.5 per install per year... it's not per user and updates are only free on a per yearly basis:

Right from the core tech fee website:
"The fee aims to meet the needs of both users and developers. Since a first annual install is only counted once per account, developers can deliver unlimited feature updates, bug fixes, and security patches to users for 12 months with no additional fee, regardless of how many devices the user has. "

Popular free apps are doomed.
Popular paid apps will need to have yearly payments from users to maintain financial feasibility over the long term.