...especially without automated updates being pushed from the Store.
They'd be charging for apps that a user may have simply forgotten about (without uninstalling) and never even have used.
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
They'd be charging for apps that a user may have simply forgotten about (without uninstalling) and never even have used.
The world is filled with people who are not very tech savvy to begin with, and the smartphone is a huge vector of attack because unlike the PC, it's where users download tons of banking and personal finance apps. You are right in that the weakest link is often still the end user, but knowing this, what's wrong with seeking out a solution in the form of a mobile operating system which does not give its user enough rope to hang themselves with?
My mom doesn't own a smartphone, but if she ever were to, I know I would like to be able to hand her an iPhone, knowing fully well that scammers would not be able to get her to download malware the same way. You try telling my mom "simply don't sideload" and watch her stare back at you with a blank face.
In the article I linked earlier, it was not clear whether the victims were aware of the concept of sideloading or its ramifications, but the modus operandi is often the same. They were tricked into downloading an app from outside of the App Store via an external link or a Facebook ad. That's why I disagree with the "don't sideload if you don't want to" argument, because I doubt those victims would have understood the distinction at the time. It's not as if they purposely went out of their way looking for malware to install. It found them.
You can scold these people for being gullible all you want. The fact remains that there have not been any reports of iPhone users falling prey to this particular sort of scam, not least because it isn't (yet) possible to download an app from outside the App Store, which would presumably fall outside the purview of App Store review.
The iOS App Store is perhaps not immune to malware (though not all malware is created equal, and so far, the best example of a "scam" I can find on iOS are apps which trick the users into signing up for pricey subscriptions, and even then, those can be easily cancelled within the App Store app itself). So the App Store seems to be doing a pretty good job of catching them.
And finally, I like that you brought up the term "trust", because it essentially sums up my entire relationship with Apple. I buy Apple gear because I trust Apple, and I think that is one of the really important aspects of Apple that many people don't understand - that Apple really does go the distance in building up a relationship of trust with its users. That doesn't mean Apple is perfect or beyond reproach, but I would liken it to how people connect with their babysitter or hairdresser. I don't evaluate them based on objective metrics, but instead on how we communicate, whether we trust them to be truthful and fair with us, how they approach a given problem etc, and that's about 90% of what I am buying as part of that service.
I hear that a lot, and you know what? The world is not a perfect place, and any solution is only as ideal as the intended audience's ability to grasp it. Maybe the absence of sideloading and trusting Apple to keep the App Store safe for its users is not the best solution as far as ideals go, but I believe it's the most convenient and accessible solution that will result in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of iPhone users, because the solution is to literally just buy an iPhone.
And to the small number of more tech savvy users who believe that they will never fall for scams and wish to sideload, I can also answer - you don't have to use an iPhone if it's sideloading that you specifically want. Go use Android if you want choice, or pick an iPhone if you value security.
I've countered this countless times in various threads. Given how I recognise your user name, I'm honestly a bit perplexed how you missed that or can't remember it.
Yes, there have been such reports. Amongst them Facebook and Google having distributed such apps using their enterprise certificates:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...ards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/
Spot on @Abazigal. Tim Cook is both under appreciated and underestimated. I think he is the most consequential CEO since Jack Welch and has exceeded Welch in many ways.
I am not aware of any replies of that sort, and the article you are linking to is of a completely separate matter. Linking me to any prior responses you have made would be much appreciate, because I am seriously drawing a blank here.
Which means that if you charge $1 for your app your broke in two years and losing money in 3...
It's not a sustainable or reasonable fee.
Maybe the intent is to also steer developers towards subscription-based models. That's literally the only business model which makes sense, and which would adequately cover the annual cost incurred under such a system.
No, it's exactly about what you claimed was impossible:
"to download an app from outside the App Store, which would presumably fall outside the purview of App Store review"
The "scam" being - since Facebook is so trustworthy a company - of course "only" being harmless data collection:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/
whatsapp has been designated a gatekeeper platform so there’ll be no need to have the WhatsApp client to communicate with WhatsApp users in the future. For any app that leaves a platform there’ll be another waiting in the wings to fill the gap.
Apple has no business dictating which kind of model an important sector of the market is forced to use. Besides, what if someone wants to publish apps for a one-time fee? Or for free?
Well, Facebook wasn't taking control of one's iPhone remotely, logging in to their banking app and siphoning their life savings in the least. I guess we can be thankful for that.
It also seemed to have happened many years ago (you honestly can't expect me to remember an article from 2019), so I wonder if something like is still possible today?
Apple shouldn't have such control over an important part of the market. If developers want to publish apps on other stores, Apple shouldn't impose a fee on that.
To make an actually useful example, it's as if the grocery store of the nearest mall/shopping center started imposing a fee on every purchase at the McDonald's of the same mall, their reasoning being that they pay for the electricity to run the fridges and freezers so it's "only fair" that other stores contribute as well. Anyone with a bit of common sense will agree that this is absurd.
That’s not really Apple’s concern outside of the App Store. I’m sure developers will come up with appropriate business models.
Well, the ball is now in the EU's court, and we will have to see how they respond. It doesn't seem like this is what the EU had in mind, but then again, I don't think Apple would have put forth a solution they knew would get rejected outright either, unless this is part of some plan to essentially drag the matter out in courts forever. So Apple would have had their army of lawyers study the DMA inside out and come up with a proposal that would still meet the letter of the law as closely as possible, and there is always that possibility that the EU may simply have been outplayed here.
All I can say is - this is who Apple is. They are only going to give up control over the App Store kicking and screaming, and the sooner everyone recognises and accepts this, the less shocked we will be when Apple does something along this line.
I guess we will know soon enough. Can't wait for next week. Vision Pro release and new Kamen Rider 555 movie getting released, even if I am not in a position to enjoy either of them.
I believe even apps using other stores will need the services of Apple, which they’ll charge for.
Except if they charge 0.50 cents per install per year then it is Apple forcing themselves into the conversation.
That’s just a charge for Apple’s services for apps outside the App Store. Apps available in the Apple App Store are monetised in a different way.
See, I agree with that. I would pay for Firebase if I had a big enough install base. But out of three complete apps, there is one that's completely offline. I don't think that last one should force me to pay anything to anyone. It uses no services, no first or third party servers and a negligible amount of space.
I just don't like how Apple is obfuscating that into the CTF and the dev fee.
From what I gather, developers opting into the new terms in the EU and staying in the App Store will still need to pay the CTF.
Free apps have costs. just because they are given away for free doesn’t mean there isn’t A cost to making and distributing them.
What’s not sustainable is charging a one-time price for a product or service that has recurring costs. Apple sets a recurring price for the App Store because it has a recurring cost structure.
If a developer chooses to offer a one-time price when they are in a recurring cost business the failure of their business is on them for making irrational decisions. They are not entitled to being subsidized by Apple or anyone else.