Yeah, my take on this is if they have to allow sideloading no fees etc in Europe its a matter of time before the dominos fall and its brought in the US, the UK and so on.
Last edited:
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
Yeah, my take on this is if they have to allow sideloading no fees etc in Europe its a matter of time before the dominos fall and its brought in the US, the UK and so on.
Apple didn't even report service revenue in 2009 ... that is how significant it was to their bottom line...
I'm not criticizing, I just want to ensure you and others are aware that as developers, Apple earns from us, even if we only make FREE apps and distribute them on our own sites.
There's a required annual fee, if you don't pay it, people can't easily run your app.
We also need to maintain a variety of hardware for testing. In recent years this has been getting more expensive as we're finding hardware designed in the last 10 years, doesn't last as long as hardware designed the prior decade.
Before the App Store (and after the launch of Mac OS X), Xcode was given away for FREE and the OS was maintained on the cost of new software and hardware sales.
The aim of the legislation is to ensure fair and contestable markets - including for application stores.
If Apple design their fees to make alternative stores financially unviable, they’re undermining the legislation.
„the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“
Doesn’t seem so free of charge now, does it?
The thing is, I'm not even sure Apple shouldn't charge a fee for these services, I even think it could be quite high. Apple's problem is they don't want to just be a platform on which apps run and they charge a fee for access. They also want to offer their own apps that compete with other apps. They also want to be the only one who gets to say if a developer has access to the platform, they are a gatekeeper.
Because they both want to be the platform and also compete for attention with third party apps there is a conflict of interest in which they need to fund their own development and also (in the EU at least) are required to compete with third party apps on a fair playing field.
As long as they want to offer their own services that compete with third party apps, act as a gatekeeper, and simultaneously collect a fee they are going to face regulation.
How did you get that number? 30 % of 1 MM is 300.000, that would be 25.000 per month… and a revenue of 999.999 lowers you to 15 %, so 12.5 K/month.
Apple also recuperates their investment from people purchasing their devices. The apps provide value to Apple because customers are more likely to buy a device with good apps.
Apple would still make a ton of money from the App Store if sideloading were allowed. PC game developers mostly choose to sell their games on a store that takes a 30% cut, even though they can sell them elsewhere.
Maybe Apple could charge a flat fee for their development tools, like $1000 a year or something, but provide them for free only to those who release apps exclusively on the app store. Or charge a low flat percentage like Unreal engine does.
They didn't?
FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power
Ya don't see how Apple is in the wrongBeen highlighted several times by me already.
Few people here want to screenshot the law. Probably because they can't argue it.
Regulation - 2022/1925 - EN - EUR-Lex
eur-lex.europa.eu
Again:
„the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.“
Doesn’t seem so free, does it?
If you release a Freemium app in the EU and you have downloads of OVER 2 million… and you’re NOT making at LEAST 100,000 of currency, then, like Spotify, that’s just a failed business plan, not Apple’s problem.
Not just deter, but with full intention to DOA it. Apple is full on middle fingering EU.
No one denying that maintaining servers, bandwidth, engineers and technicians don’t cost a huge amount. But then Apple is a trillion dollar company. To their size, the cost is bound to be much higher than an indie developer spending on maintaining their own apps. Spending alone doesn’t say anything, and it is relative to its size.
Please try to provide a valid (counter-) point or argument rather than merely retorting how correct you are (and nothing else).
Really? Apple's iPhone costs about the same as or less than an equivalent Samsung S24 Ultra - and Samsung does not bear any of the cost of developing an operating system.
Hmmm .. What is your basis for concluding that this is an example of greed? Serious question.
Have you done the math to understand the up-front and ongoing investment and expenses required to setup and maintain a global app distribution platform with millions of apps and billions of downloads?
Do you understand the storage and app server, data center, network infrastructure, network engineering, security, administration and other systems and personnel required to operate at this scale?
If you do understand this, are you willing to use shareholders’ or your own money to make the required investment and then offer it for free to people who are using it to make money for themselves and their investors and business partners? Have you done the math to determine what charges are reasonable and what would constitute greed? If you have, please share it.
Don't need to as you haven't proven your point.
They don't, its some tiny company call google I heard
Where to elect there is but one,
‘Tis Hobson’s choice — take that, or none
Apps from third-party stores will still have to be notarized by Apple, and the notarization will be checked upon installation, very likely requiring an online check with Apple's servers, so Apple will know exactly which app by which developer has been installed where and when.
(So much for gate-keeping reduction...)
The mods seem to be happy to take down comments today (2 of mine), most likely due to EU comments.
So, I’ll just say this, I think the law may need to be revised or updated.
Hopefully this comment can stay up.
So, I’ll just say this, I think the law may need to be revised or updated.
Hopefully this comment can stay up.
If Apple’s intention is to destroy sideloading DOA, I’m surprised they don’t ask more for a lower threshold. Let’s say $100 per install for total installs past 10,000. Even better no?
Normally I’m opposed to government telling a business how to operate, but after hearing this I want the EU to eviscerate Apple.