If you think only Apple can be trusted with policing app distribution, then just don't use other methods of installing apps.
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.
EU Antitrust Chief Warns Apple About App Store Fees and Safety Warnings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not disagreeing with that, mostly just trying to provide additional info for why Blackberry struggled so much with the shift.
I literally posted reasons why we are all less secure even if we don't use other methods of installing apps in the post you are quoting. Just because EU defenders keep saying "if you don't use the third-party stores, it won't impact you" over and over and over again does not make it true.
Seriously, go read the PDF I linked. It's not that long. I'm sure it won't change your mind, but maybe it'll make you think.
Seriously, do you think a white paper by Apple will produce a balanced view about the risks of alternative app stores? I don't have to read it to know what their conclusion will be. They have been beating the same drum for years already.
Last edited:
They made useless APIs for it and then were like "we deserve a humongous fee because we had to put in the work to make these APIs so it's only fair!"
While I know Apple would never do this, it sure would be interesting if Apple just pulled the affected products out of the EU. I bet a large percentage of EU consumers that want an iPhone would just get them imported.
Whatever compromise Apple comes up with to satisfy the EU will only be temporary. The EU will eventually come back looking to take more.
-kp
Whatever compromise Apple comes up with to satisfy the EU will only be temporary. The EU will eventually come back looking to take more.
-kp
This has to be the funniest joke I've ever read
Another person who didn't read the thread, shareholders would revolt if Apple gave up over 80 billion in annnual revenue to protect the App Store commission.
Exactly, so apple should stop trying to compromise on something EU won’t compromise on
What about the second anual sales Mr. Math dude? Of course it is not off, it's instead a very common scenario.
What's off?
A $3 monthly subscription, $36 a year is not common?
Monthly App updates is not common?
An App with 10k users or more is no common?
15% of €360k is not €54k?
.5*12*10k is not €60k? Isn't this 16.6% of 360k?
Isn't it true that Apple evaluate its Core Technologies at €0 for free Apps (App Store pending)?
Isn't it true that Apple evaluate its Core Technologies close to 0 for payed Apps (App Store pending)?
What math is off? Just today 45 Apps on my iPhone were updated. Since the start of the month .. I can't even be bothered to count.
PS: If you say it is off because a lot of businesses update their Apps more than once a month ... I would tend do agree. That is called customer service.
I tell you what looks off. €0.5 for a 350MB download that you don't even service ... that is a surplus that is off by many order of magnitude.
Last edited:
Still zero for the CTF.
Perhaps if you go back and read your original post, you will realize that you said 1,000 instead of 10k.
In case you don't realize it, you do not own digital copies of movies or games. You have the right to watch or play them only as lon as the "Rights" owner lets you. This is not Apple's rules.
The Epic debacle was smoke and mirrors. They got free marketing from the tech press for a year out of that as well as the potential to get their storefront on PlayStation consoles.
What the EU will say is that there are no rules for other methods of loading onto the iPhone. No required security and no money to Apple.
And to those of you who say there is zero impact to EU users if they do no not "sideload", I disagree.
Them fact that it is technically possible to do so in the EU, means that there exists a potential attack vector for hackers.
And if it happens to you, who are you going to blame? Not the bureaucrats in the EU I'm sure.
No problem. What about the part where you claim Apple would charge a 60k CTF when in reality the CTF would be zero for under 1 million first annual installs?
That should completely change your conclusion.
Of course, these people forcing Apple to allow alternative stores without any security warnings are thereby assuming legal responsibility for all security breaches that might result from following their demands, right? <crickets>
Translation: I’m scared they’ll make good points and my mind will be changed.
CTF, understood. Need to run down the numbers to find what is the breaking point in terms of number of users. From the top of my head I would say 130k users a year. After that is 16.7% at the mentioned pricing and regular updates. There are no free lunches.
Yet, the bottom line is that for a steering free ecosystem, Core Technologies price should be clear and the same either in App Store out of it. In the end either if you are an App Store supplier or an independent vendor, the Core Technologies used do not change. Let's see how flagship Apps and games, free or not run with that in the App Store.
@BaldiMac,
I think I may have fully understood the CTF now. It looks that Apple does not charge for App updates under a 12 Month period from the first install of the year. So basically one pays €0.5 per App install each 12 months regardless of the number of updates. If that is the case, the deal looks ok for most cases ... provided the developer actually has a business.
"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. And when users upgrade or replace their devices, developers aren’t charged when users reinstall their apps through an iCloud transfer."
Looks ok to me. Is not bad at all.
The challenge I guess are for freemium models.
I think I may have fully understood the CTF now. It looks that Apple does not charge for App updates under a 12 Month period from the first install of the year. So basically one pays €0.5 per App install each 12 months regardless of the number of updates. If that is the case, the deal looks ok for most cases ... provided the developer actually has a business.
"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. And when users upgrade or replace their devices, developers aren’t charged when users reinstall their apps through an iCloud transfer."
Looks ok to me. Is not bad at all.
The challenge I guess are for freemium models.
Last edited:
Mostly right. Again, the first one million first annual installs are free. If you only have 130k users, than you will not pay Apple anything to distribute on a third-party app store.
yes.
I think the problem are for non profit apps. No Ads, nothing. Maybe they could run a special program for those. Fremium should run the numbers, and have a look at conversion costs.
PS: Always found unfair practice that companies like Meta and Twitter pay nothing compared to the rest of us.
Last edited:
Free apps distributed by non profits are already exempt. Apple announced they are also looking into options for free apps that generate no revenue at all.
So my understanding is the the DMA does allow a “gaterkeeper” to make money on their infrastructure, and people are now complaining that the fees Apple is proposing are too high.
And now the EU might or might not tell Apple how much they can charge. That is ludicrous for a regulatory body to dictate how much a company can make.
So we shall wait and see how the EU responds… until then they can “warn” all they want.
And now the EU might or might not tell Apple how much they can charge. That is ludicrous for a regulatory body to dictate how much a company can make.
So we shall wait and see how the EU responds… until then they can “warn” all they want.